PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 113-371.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 30, 2013
Federal Permitting Improvement Act of 2013 - Establishes the Federal Permitting Improvement Council to be chaired by a Federal Chief Permitting Officer (Federal CPO) who is an officer of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Requires the Federal CPO to: (1) establish an inventory of covered projects for which the review or authorization of the head of any federal agency is pending, (2) develop nonbinding performance schedules for reviews and authorizations of each category of covered projects, and (3) maintain an online database, to be known as the Permitting Dashboard, to track the status of federal reviews and authorizations for any covered project. Defines "covered project" as any construction activity that requires authorization or review by a federal agency and that: (1) involves renewable or conventional energy production, electricity transmission, surface transportation, aviation, ports and waterways, water resource projects, broadband, manufacturing, or any other sector as determined by the Federal CPO; and (2) is likely to require an initial investment of more than $25 million.
Requires an agency with principal responsibility for review and authorization of a covered project (lead agency) to establish: (1) a plan for coordinating public and agency participation in, and completion of, any required federal review and authorization for a covered project and submit such plan to the Federal CPO; (2) a permitting timetable that includes intermediate and final deadlines for agency action on any federal review or authorization required for a project; and (3) a process for consultation with participating agencies early in the approval process to identify and address key issues of concern.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Grants the consent of Congress for three or more contiguous states to enter into an interstate compact establishing regional infrastructure development agencies to facilitate authorization and review of covered projects.
Requires agencies to complete environmental reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for covered projects in a timely, coordinated, and environmentally responsible manner.
Reduces the statute of limitations for judicial review of any authorization issued by an agency for a covered project from 6 years to 150 days after a notice is published in the Federal Register that authorization for a covered project is final. Requires a court, in issuing injunctive relief, to consider the potential for significant job losses or other economic harm from an order or injunction.
People & committees
Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 113-371.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1397 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 S.1397 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 S.1397 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 S.1397 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.