PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 12, 2013
Public Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2013 - Requires the Secretary of the Army to approve or disapprove a covered permit application for a public safety project within two years after the application is submitted. Requires an application upon which the Secretary fails to act within such time to be considered under an expedited process, unless the governor of the state in which the project is to be located issues a declaration of emergency with respect to the project. Defines "covered permit application" as an application for a permit to discharge dredge or fill material submitted by a state or municipality under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act).
Directs the Secretary to establish such an expedited process, under which the Secretary shall: (1) prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, (2) weigh the public safety aspects of the project as greater than the environmental costs, and (3) complete consultation with other agencies within six months. Provides that the Secretary, in issuing a permit under the expedited process: (1) may not require mitigation costs in an amount that exceeds 20% of the project's total cost, and (2) may relocate from the project any of the members of a threatened or endangered species of plant or animal that the relevant federal agencies determine would be taken in the course of the project.
Authorizes the state or municipality that submitted a covered permit application for a project, if a governor issues a declaration of emergency with respect to the project, to request that: (1) the application be considered under the expedited process; or (2) the Council on Environmental Quality approve the project or create an alternative, which must be done within 90 days or the application shall be deemed approved and the environmental requirements shall be deemed satisfied.
People & committees
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Natural 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 Natural 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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1863-1864)
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: Aug 12, 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.3730 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.3730 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.3730 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.3730 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.