Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fast 41 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House subcommittee hears bipartisan push to expand FAST‑41 eligibility to mid‑sized projects
Summary
Lawmakers and witnesses urged lowering FAST‑41’s investment threshold from $200 million to $50 million (HR 8003), saying the change would bring more broadband, water and regional infrastructure projects into the program without waiving environmental reviews.
Chairman Stauber and bill sponsors told the subcommittee they view HR 8003 as a bipartisan step to speed permitting for projects that serve communities while preserving legal safeguards.
"My bill lowers the minimum investment threshold for infrastructure projects to qualify as covered projects under the FAST‑41 program from $200,000,000 down to $50,000,000," Representative Chris DeLuzio said, urging broader participation by mid‑sized projects. He argued that expanding eligibility would shorten permitting timelines for projects that deliver local benefits.
Emily Domenech, executive director of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, told the committee the council supports the bill as written and that lowering the threshold would allow more project sponsors — including broadband and water projects — to use the FAST‑41 coordination tools. Domenech said, "Lowering this threshold would allow more project sponsors to utilize the service the permitting council provides and ultimately means more critical infrastructure built in our communities." She emphasized the program is voluntary and does not change substantive environmental requirements: "We do not change the regulatory process. We simply apply them in a more efficient way."
Multiple witnesses with permitting experience backed expanding FAST‑41. Eric Bridal, a former executive director of the permitting council, said the council’s governance model improves accountability and coordination without weakening environmental protections. Bridal testified that lower thresholds would allow more regionally impactful but smaller projects to benefit from the program’s scheduling, transparency, and active management.
Supporters and some members also discussed implementation questions: whether the council has sufficient staffing and whether the FAST‑41 director needs stronger authority to enforce timetables. Domenech acknowledged resource constraints as the portfolio grows and suggested Congress consider whether the council will require additional discretion or funding to manage more projects.
The subcommittee did not vote. Members asked witnesses for follow‑up on funding and capacity, and the record was held open for additional questions.
