All Roll Calls
Yes: 427 • No: 407
HR4776119th Congress
SPEED Act
Sponsored By: Representative Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]
Passed House
Summary
Streamlines NEPA reviews and speeds permitting by setting strict deadlines, narrowing what environmental effects can be considered, and tightening judicial review. This law treats NEPA as a procedural checklist rather than a source of substantive rights.
Show full summary
- Project applicants and developers get faster, more predictable decisions. Lead agencies must decide completeness within 60 days, decide the level of review within another 60 days after completeness, and issue a final agency action within 30 days after environmental documentation is done. Agencies may rely on prior state, tribal, or programmatic reviews and broaden categorical exclusions.
- Courts and litigants face tighter limits on challenges and faster case schedules. Claims generally must be filed within 150 days, courts give substantial deference to agencies, remands include a 180-day correction deadline, trial courts must resolve matters within about 180 days after the record is filed, and appeals are due and decided within fixed short windows.
- Tribes and environmental reviewers see narrower scopes and new constraints. Only parties who submitted substantive, unique comments can sue on that issue and tribes retain special standing for trust-resource actions but other review avenues are restricted.
Personalized for You
How does this bill affect your finances?
Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.
Bill Overview
Analyzed Economic Effects
5 provisions identified: 1 benefits, 0 costs, 4 mixed.
Faster agency deadlines for project approvals
This bill would set strict timelines for project applications. Agencies would have 60 days to say if an application is complete or ask for more. Once complete, within 60 days they must say no further review, start an EIS, or require an EA. Lead agencies would invite likely cooperating agencies within 21 days and meet within 7 days after responses; late agencies would be added quickly. A final agency action would be due within 30 days after the EIS or EA is done, and deadline extensions would need the applicant's OK.
Faster court deadlines for environmental reviews
This bill would speed court cases over federal environmental reviews by setting strict clocks. The agency record would be due within 60 days; trial courts and appeals would usually decide within 180 days. Lawsuits would need to be filed within 150 days of the final agency action. For actions with public comments, only people who sent a unique, substantive comment and face direct harm could sue. If a court finds a problem, it would send the case back without canceling the project and give up to 180 days to fix it. Agency actions already put into correction between January 20, 2025 and enactment would be exempt from these new rules.
Narrower environmental reviews, less new research
This bill would narrow what agencies consider in environmental reviews. They would count only effects closely caused by the project, not speculative or far‑off impacts. Agencies could reuse prior reviews or program studies when projects and effects are substantially the same, and they would run other required reviews at the same time. A review done under another law, or by a State or Tribe, could satisfy federal review if it serves the same function. Congress could create categorical exclusions, NEPA would be stated as procedural only, and agencies generally could not require or wait for new studies after an application unless the research is essential and not unreasonably costly or slow.
Tighter limits on canceling permits
This bill would make it hard for agencies to cancel or change project permits and approvals. They could act only for limited reasons: a court order, a material breach or legal violation, fraud, new specific imminent harm not reviewed, or at the holder's request. Agencies would need clear, convincing evidence and must give written notice. Only the federal appeals court where the project sits could review these actions, and agencies could not ask courts to cancel a permit without the holder's written OK. Agencies also could not void an applicant's environmental documents unless a court orders it or the applicant agrees.
Fewer outside lawsuits on tribal trust lands
This bill would shield many actions on tribal trust lands from outside NEPA lawsuits. Only the Tribe could bring a challenge, unless effects are reasonably foreseeable outside the trust lands. When a Tribe asks for an action on trust resources and a no‑action option was studied, agencies would presume that doing nothing would harm the Tribe.
Sponsors & CoSponsors
Sponsor
Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]
AR • R
Cosponsors
Rep. Golden, Jared F. [D-ME-2]
ME • D
Sponsored 7/25/2025
Cuellar
TX • D
Sponsored 9/8/2025
Stauber
MN • R
Sponsored 9/8/2025
Gonzalez, V.
TX • D
Sponsored 9/9/2025
Hageman
WY • R
Sponsored 9/9/2025
Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]
WA • R
Sponsored 9/10/2025
Evans (CO)
CO • R
Sponsored 9/17/2025
Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3]
WA • D
Sponsored 9/17/2025
Davis (NC)
NC • D
Sponsored 9/26/2025
Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]
IA • R
Sponsored 9/26/2025
Gray
CA • D
Sponsored 11/20/2025
Rep. Begich, Nicholas J. [R-AK-At Large]
AK • R
Sponsored 11/20/2025
Costa
CA • D
Sponsored 11/20/2025
Rep. Kiggans, Jennifer A. [R-VA-2]
VA • R
Sponsored 11/20/2025
Roll Call Votes
house vote • 12/18/2025
On Passage
Yes: 221 • No: 196
house vote • 12/18/2025
On Motion to Recommit
Yes: 206 • No: 211