A Republican bill with 19 Republican cosponsors · See all 19 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 303.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
The "Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act" requires federal agencies to evaluate their current permitting systems to see if they can be replaced by a "permitting by rule" process. This new process would involve applicants certifying they meet specific written standards rather than undergoing a full agency review. Agencies must submit detailed reports to Congress regarding their current permit types, review steps, and typical timelines. If an agency identifies that permitting by rule is possible, they must establish a streamlined application process. This new process includes a 180-day window after which an application is deemed granted if no action is taken. The bill aims to reduce the delays, costs, and broad discretion currently found in agency permitting systems.
Yes· 3 of 17
- Scored +6
Would business owners be better off under this?
Significant benefits for business owners through reduced waiting times and predictable regulatory paths.
- Scored +5
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
A streamlined permitting process reduces the time-consuming and expensive burdens often faced by smaller entities.
- Scored +4
Is this likely to grow the economy?
Reducing regulatory delays and administrative costs can stimulate economic activity across various sectors.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The shift to 'permitting by rule' may prioritize speed over comprehensive environmental scrutiny.
- Scored -2
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Simplified review processes might reduce the depth of scrutiny applied to potential risks.
- Scored -2
Would union members be better off under this?
Streamlined processes might reduce the time required for procedural oversight that unions often utilize.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reduced Delay and Expense: The bill seeks to overcome the "tedious, time consuming, and often expensive" permitting system that currently exists for both the government and private interests (Section 2, Findings).
-
Streamlined Approval Process: Under the "permitting by rule" system, applications can be granted automatically if the agency does not act within 180 days after a completed application is submitted (Section 3(c)(1)(C)).
-
Standardized Requirements: The new process requires agencies to specify in writing each requirement and substantive standard that must be met, allowing applicants to provide certifications rather than a full review (Section 3(c)(1)(A-B)).
-
Increased Accountability for Delays: If an agency fails to submit its required report on time, it may be required to pay the attorney fees and costs of applicants who file claims regarding permit delays (Section 3(b)(4)).
-
Protection Against Unjustified Actions: In cases where an applicant appeals a permit disapproval, suspension, or revocation, the agency bears the burden of proof to show that its action was lawful (Section 3(c)(4)(D)).
-
Recourse for Unjustified Decisions: If a court finds that an agency was not "substantially justified" in its decision to deny, suspend, or revoke a permit, the agency must pay the applicant's attorney fees and costs (Section 3(c)(4)(E)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Potential for Increased Audits: While the process is streamlined, agencies still retain the right to audit applications and verify compliance with standards at any time (Section 3(c)(3) and 3(c)(4)(B)(i)).
-
Risk of Permit Revocation: Agencies maintain the power to require corrective action, suspend, or revoke a permit if they find the recipient is not meeting required standards (Section 3(c)(4)(B)(ii)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — A streamlined permitting process reduces the time-consuming and expensive burdens often faced by smaller entities. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Reducing regulatory delays and administrative costs can stimulate economic activity across various sectors. Is this likely to create jobs? — Streamlined permitting may reduce overhead costs for industries, potentially encouraging expansion and hiring. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Increased efficiency in agency processes could lead to long-term administrative cost savings. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill introduces penalties for agency delays, promoting more efficient use of resources. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Simplified review processes might reduce the depth of scrutiny applied to potential risks.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Significant benefits for business owners through reduced waiting times and predictable regulatory paths. Would farmers be better off under this? — Agricultural interests may benefit from faster permitting for land and equipment usage. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Easier permitting may assist in rural land development and infrastructure. Would union members be better off under this? — Streamlined processes might reduce the time required for procedural oversight that unions often utilize.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The requirement for agencies to report detailed processes and timelines increases procedural transparency. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill provides clear timelines and shifts the burden of proof to the agency in appeals. Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Streamlined federal permitting can facilitate smoother interstate economic activity. Does this give the federal government more power? — While it limits agency discretion, the centralized rules still govern via federal authority.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Faster permitting could accelerate the deployment of new energy projects. Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport? — Faster approval processes facilitate easier transit project implementation. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — Streamlined permitting can accelerate infrastructure development projects. Does this invest in rural communities? — Reduced regulatory burdens can benefit rural development efforts. Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — Efficient energy permitting can potentially lower energy costs over time. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The shift to 'permitting by rule' may prioritize speed over comprehensive environmental scrutiny. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Faster permitting might reduce the rigor of environmental impact reviews. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The transition toward rule-based permitting may alter traditional land management scrutiny.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more into space exploration? — Streamlined permitting could expedite aerospace and exploration activities.
- 10/28/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 119-351.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 303.
- 7/2/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/21/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 19.
- 3/3/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/23/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- 17 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jodey ArringtonRepublican · Texas
Mike CollinsRepublican · Georgia
Juan CiscomaniRepublican · Arizona
Russ FulcherRepublican · Idaho
Michelle FischbachRepublican · Minnesota
Brad FinstadRepublican · Minnesota
Vince FongRepublican · California
Paul GosarRepublican · Arizona
Harriet HagemanRepublican · Wyoming
Jeff HurdRepublican · Colorado
Mike KennedyRepublican · Utah
Blake MooreRepublican · Utah
James MoylanRepublican · Guam
Dan NewhouseRepublican · Washington
Burgess OwensRepublican · Utah
August PflugerRepublican · Texas
Pete StauberRepublican · Minnesota
David ValadaoRepublican · California
Rudy YakymRepublican · Indiana