A Democratic bill with 5 Republican cosponsors · See all 10 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The CERTAIN Act establishes new requirements for how Federal agencies handle the termination, review, and judicial review of authorizations. It places strict limits on when an agency can revoke or alter an authorization, requiring clear and convincing evidence for such actions. The bill implements specific timelines for application reviews to prevent agencies from stalling projects. It also establishes a system for coordinating complex authorizations through a lead agency and a coordination plan. Additionally, the Act provides for judicial review of agency actions and delays, creating a presumption of unreasonable delay if deadlines are missed. Finally, it includes provisions to increase federal permitting capacity through personnel assessments and direct hire authority.
Yes· 3 of 18
- Scored +7
Does this repair or build roads and bridges?
Explicitly targets infrastructure projects by setting hard deadlines and coordination plans to speed up approvals for roads and bridges.
- Scored +6
Is this likely to grow the economy?
Accelerates infrastructure development by removing bureaucratic delays and establishing firm permit review timelines.
- Scored +5
Is this likely to create jobs?
Streamlines project permitting and infrastructure reviews, which can accelerate construction and related employment opportunities.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Limits the ability of federal agencies to modify or revoke existing authorizations and forces expedited environmental review timelines.
- Scored -4
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Strict statutory deadlines for environmental reviews and potential automatic permit approvals may weaken rigorous environmental protections.
- Scored -3
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Imposes rigid timelines on federal agencies managing public lands and reviewing environmental impacts.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Certainty for Authorization Holders: Federal agencies are generally prohibited from revoking, rescinding, or altering an authorization unless required by a court, necessary to prevent immediate harm to life or property, requested by the holder, or due to a material breach or fraud. (Section 2(a))
-
Faster Application Processing: The bill mandates specific timelines for agencies to notify applicants of receipt and determine if an application is complete, which prevents indefinite waiting periods. (Section s 3(a))
-
Prevention of Unnecessary Application Delays: Applications can be "deemed complete" if an agency fails to act within a set timeframe, preventing agencies from indefinitely requesting more information to stall a project. (Section 3(b)(1))
-
Enhanced Dispute Resolution: The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality is tasked with mediating disputes regarding environmental reviews to help reach a timely resolution. (Section 4(b))
-
Increased Accountability for Agency Delays: The bill creates a rebuttable presumption that an agency has acted unlawfully if it fails to meet established deadlines or milestones, and requires courts to issue orders compelling corrective action. (Section 5(a))
-
Improved Agency Efficiency: By requiring agencies to report on their personnel capacity and allowing for direct hire authority to fill gaps, the bill aims to ensure agencies have enough staff to process applications in a timely manner. (Section 7)
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limits on Agency Intervention: An agency may be restricted from taking action to address issues unless they meet strict criteria, even if a situation arises that was not reasonably anticipated during the initial review. (Section 2(a)(2))
-
Increased Burden of Proof for Agencies: Any action taken by an agency to interfere with an authorization must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, which could make it harder for agencies to respond to new issues. (Section 2(b))
-
Strict Requirements for Denying Applications: An agency cannot deny an application without providing a written statement describing the reasons and establishing that the decision is supported by the record and authorized by statute. (Section 3(e))
-
Potential for Rapid Decisions: The bill sets specific deadlines for final agency actions on complex authorizations, which may require agencies to issue decisions within much shorter timeframes (such as six months for those involving categorical exclusions). (Section 6(f)(4))
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
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Accelerates infrastructure development by removing bureaucratic delays and establishing firm permit review timelines. Is this likely to create jobs? — Streamlines project permitting and infrastructure reviews, which can accelerate construction and related employment opportunities. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides clearer guidelines and quicker approval deadlines that benefit small businesses seeking permits. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Requires agency staffing assessments and tracking reports to manage federal permitting capacity more efficiently.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Benefits project developers, contractors, and business owners by eliminating endless bureaucratic waiting periods for permits. Would union members be better off under this? — Faster project approvals and increased infrastructure investment can lead to more jobs for construction and trade unions. Would farmers be better off under this? — Speeds up routine and complex authorizations that may impact agricultural land use and rural infrastructure. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Aids in faster approval of rural development, energy, and transportation projects. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Streamlines urban infrastructure and transit project approvals. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Accelerated review timelines could potentially limit thorough consultation with tribal communities on federal projects.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Reduces interstate barriers and bureaucratic friction for major infrastructure projects. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Mandates public documentation of application receipts, coordination plans, and regular reporting on agency permitting capacities. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides applicants clearer legal avenues and presumptions of unreasonable delay to hold slow-moving agencies accountable. Does this give the federal government more power? — Imposes strict federal statutory deadlines and oversight requirements on administrative agencies.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — Explicitly targets infrastructure projects by setting hard deadlines and coordination plans to speed up approvals for roads and bridges. Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport? — Streamlines federal authorization processes for complex projects, including public transit infrastructure. Does this invest in rural communities? — Facilitates faster infrastructure reviews that can support development projects in rural areas. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Accelerates the permitting timeline for energy and infrastructure projects, which can facilitate renewable energy buildout. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Limits the ability of federal agencies to modify or revoke existing authorizations and forces expedited environmental review timelines. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Strict statutory deadlines for environmental reviews and potential automatic permit approvals may weaken rigorous environmental protections. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Imposes rigid timelines on federal agencies managing public lands and reviewing environmental impacts. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — Faster permitting and reduced agency oversight could expedite fossil fuel infrastructure development.
- Education And Technology
- Does this get reliable internet to more people? — Speeds up the permitting processes required to construct broadband and other telecommunications infrastructure.
- 11/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/31/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 4/15/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 7 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Troy CarterDemocrat · Louisiana
Juan CiscomaniRepublican · Arizona
Sharice DavidsDemocrat · Kansas
Gabe EvansRepublican · Colorado
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Andrew GarbarinoRepublican · New York
Adam GrayDemocrat · California
Chrissy HoulahanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Jennifer KiggansRepublican · Virginia
Gabe VasquezDemocrat · New Mexico