Building Chips in America Act of 2023
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2228) to amend the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 to clarify the scope of a major Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to certain projects relating to the production of semiconductors, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows: S. 2228
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Building Chips in America Act of 2023''. SEC. 2. SEMICONDUCTOR PROGRAM.
Title XCIX of division H of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 U.S.C. 4651 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 9902 (15 U.S.C. 4652)--
(A) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections (i) and (j), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
``(h) Authority Relating to Environmental Review.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provision by the Secretary of Federal financial assistance for a project described in this section that satisfies the requirements under subsection (a)(2)(C)(i) of this section shall not be considered to be a major Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (referred to in this subsection as `NEPA') or an undertaking for the purposes of division A of subtitle III of title 54, United States Code, if--
``(A) the activity described in the application for that project has commenced not later than December 31, 2024;
``(B) the Federal financial assistance provided is in the form of a loan or loan guarantee; or
``(C) the Federal financial assistance provided, excluding any loan or loan guarantee, comprises not more than 10 percent of the total estimated cost of the project.
``(2) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed as altering whether an activity described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) is considered to be a major Federal action under NEPA, or an undertaking under division A of subtitle III of title 54, United States Code, for a reason other than that the activity is eligible for Federal financial assistance provided under this section.''; and
(2) in section 9909 (15 U.S.C. 4659), by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Lead Federal Agency and Cooperating Agencies.--
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `lead agency' has the meaning given the term in section 111 of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4336e).
``(2) Option to serve as lead agency.--With respect to a covered activity that is a major Federal action under NEPA, and with respect to which the Department of Commerce is authorized or required by law to issue an authorization or take action for or relating to that covered activity, the Department of Commerce shall have the first right to serve as the lead agency with respect to that covered activity under NEPA.
``(d) Categorical Exclusions.--
``(1) Establishment of categorical exclusions.--Each of the following categorical exclusions is established for the National Institute of Standards and Technology with respect to a covered activity and, beginning on the date of enactment of this subsection, is available for use by the Secretary with respect to a covered activity:
``(A) Categorical exclusion 17.04.d (relating to the acquisition of machinery and equipment) in the document entitled `EDA Program to Implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Other Federal Environmental Mandates As Required' (Directive No. 17.02-2; effective date October 14, 1992).
``(B) Categorical exclusion A9 in Appendix A to subpart D of part 1021 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
``(C) Categorical exclusions B1.24, B1.31, B2.5, and B5.1 in Appendix B to subpart D of part 1021 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
``(D) The categorical exclusions described in paragraphs (4) and (13) of section 50.19(b) of title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
``(E) Categorical exclusion (c)(1) in Appendix B to part 651 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
``(F) Categorical exclusions A2.3.8 and A2.3.14 in Appendix B to part 989 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
``(2) Additional categorical exclusions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each of the following shall be treated as a category of action categorically excluded from the requirements relating to environmental assessments and environmental impact statements under section 1501.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation:
``(A) The provision by the Secretary of any Federal financial assistance for a project described in section 9902, if the facility that is the subject of the project is on or adjacent to a site--
``(i) that is owned or leased by the covered entity to which Federal financial assistance is provided for that project; and
``(ii) on which, as of the date on which the Secretary provides that Federal financial assistance, substantially similar construction, expansion, or modernization is being or has been carried out, such that the facility would not more than double existing developed acreage or on-site supporting infrastructure.
``(B) The provision by the Secretary of Defense of any Federal financial assistance relating to--
``(i) the creation, expansion, or modernization of one or more facilities described in the second sentence of section 9903(a)(1); or
``(ii) carrying out section 9903(b), as in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection.
``(C) Any activity undertaken by the Secretary relating to carrying out section 9906, as in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection.
``(e) Incorporation of Prior Planning Decisions.--
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `prior studies and decisions' means baseline data, planning documents, studies, analyses, decisions, and documentation that a Federal agency has completed for a project (or that have been completed under the laws and procedures of a State or Indian Tribe), including for determining the reasonable range of alternatives for that project.
``(2) Reliance on prior studies and decisions.--In completing an environmental review under NEPA for a covered activity, the Secretary may consider and, as appropriate, rely on or adopt prior studies and decisions, if the Secretary determines that--
``(A) those prior studies and decisions meet the standards for an adequate statement, assessment, or determination under applicable procedures of the Department of Commerce implementing the requirements of NEPA;
``(B) in the case of prior studies and decisions completed under the laws and procedures of a State or Indian Tribe, those laws and procedures are of equal or greater rigor than those of each applicable Federal law, including NEPA, implementing procedures of the Department of Commerce; or
``(C) if applicable, the prior studies and decisions are informed by other analysis or documentation that would have been prepared if the prior studies and decisions were prepared by the Secretary under NEPA.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Covered activity.--The term `covered activity' means any activity relating to the construction, expansion, or modernization of a facility, the investment in which is eligible for Federal financial assistance under section 9902 or 9906.
``(2) NEPA.--The term `NEPA' means the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).''.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. 2228, the bill now under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2228, the Building Chips in America Act. This is a companion to H.R. 4549, which was introduced in the House by Representative Kiggans along with Representatives Peters, Williams, Allred, and McCaul.
The Building Chips in America Act is fundamentally about our competitiveness and national security.
Semiconductor chips have become essential to the way we live and work. They power our phones, medical devices, cars, and computers. They are not only essential to our economic security but our national security, as well. Yet, the U.S. is dependent on foreign countries for access to chips.
The Chinese Communist Party has made it clear that it wants to dominate the globe in key technology areas, and part of their strategy is to increase China's share of the semiconductor market through both investment and acquisition.
U.S. technology companies obtain as much as 90 percent of their semiconductor chips from Taiwan, which is a huge risk given the geopolitical situation in the region.
When Congress passed the CHIPS for America Act in 2020 and the CHIPS and Science Act in 2022, the intention was to address this lack of domestic chip production to make us more competitive, and it is starting to work. Since we passed these bills, we have seen companies throughout the supply chain announcing billions of dollars in new investments in domestic chip manufacturing.
Unfortunately, these projects are being required to undergo a lengthy National Environmental Policy Act review. These reviews drag on for a long time. The Council on Environmental Quality reports that it takes an average of 4\1/2\ years to complete this process. That defeats the goal of quickly scaling up chips production in the United States.
Not only do NEPA reviews delay ongoing construction, but they also discourage future investments in chip production. This bill addresses that issue by streamlining the permit requirements so we can quickly build up our semiconductor manufacturing. It clarifies that certain CHIPS projects are not subject to NEPA reviews, and it improves efficiency by ensuring that the Commerce Department is the lead agency to carry out NEPA reviews for the projects that are subject to these requirements.
It also gives Commerce more tools to complete environmental reviews.
Finally, it limits the timeline for court challenges to these reviews.
In short, it allows Commerce to be flexible in how it promotes growth while still ensuring environmental protections.
We cannot afford to stunt our own progress in chip manufacturing because we are following a flawed bureaucratic process.
Mr. Speaker, I also note that addressing environmental permitting is an issue that extends well beyond chip production. My colleague Bruce Westerman, chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, has championed the need to comprehensively address NEPA and its unintended consequences. I appreciate his effort to make NEPA work better for the American people.
Today's bill is narrower in scope than what Chairman Westerman has proposed. While it doesn't address NEPA in its entirety, I believe this is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House who have sponsored this bill, as well as our Senate counterparts, and I urge everyone to support this important reform.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the Building Chips in America Act is pragmatic legislation that ensures we aren't sacrificing our growth in chip production because of unwieldy permitting processes.
The changes we are making here today won't compromise the laws that protect our clean air and water, but they do allow us to move forward with semiconductor manufacturing. That is why this bill has strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source