PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from CEQ.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 21, 2003
Directs the Secretary of Transportation to develop and implement a process for the expedited environmental review and approval of safety emergency highway construction or maintenance projects that correct or improve hazardous locations on a highway.
Directs the Secretary to issue regulations that: (1) allow the use of the process for any project correcting or improving hazardous locations on a highway within a State where the motor vehicle accident rate is at least 50 percent higher than the statewide average for similar classes of highways, if the project only includes roadway safety improvements that have a high potential to reduce the number of motor vehicle accidents; and (2) establish criteria for approving deviations from procedures established in regulations issued by the Secretary implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
Requires each Federal agency that has jurisdiction over environmental issues that may be affected by such a project and the analysis of which would be part of any environmental document required by NEPA, or that may be required by Federal law to independently conduct an environmental review or analysis for such project, determine whether to issue a permit, license, or approval of the project, or render an opinion or recommendation on the project's environmental impact, to issue regulations providing for the expedited processing of, and approval of deviations for, the project.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Exempts a Federal agency approving such a deviation from the requirement to consult with the Council on Environmental Quality.
People & committees
Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from CEQ.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3585 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3585 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3585 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3585 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.