Amata Takes Part in Bipartisan, Bicameral Letter for Chips Permitting Reform in Defense Bill

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Uifa’atali Amata, a Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC), is one of 119 lawmakers taking part in a bipartisan, bicameral letter led by U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), urging Congress to preserve the Building Chips in America Act in the Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The chips permitting bill passed with widespread bipartisan support as an amendment to the Senate NDAA in July. It streamlines National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review requirements for semiconductor manufacturing projects to maximize the impact of the CHIPS and Science Act, a prior microchip manufacturing bill led by Sen. Kelly.

Senate and House leaders are preparing to negotiate a final, compromise version of the NDAA to pass both chambers and be signed into law. The letter urges Senate and House leaders to maintain the Senate-passed microchip permitting reforms in that final version, with the support of key lawmakers including HFAC Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX).

“Historically, NEPA reviews apply to projects that receive a significant portion of federal funding, giving the Federal government sufficient control over the project’s outcome. This is not the case for the CHIPS program,” the lawmakers note. Federal funding for CHIPS Act projects will comprise a minimal share of the cost, but they would still be deemed “major federal actions… This could halt or delay commencement of new projects, impacting the United States’ ability to bolster its national security interests, economic growth, competitiveness, and technological leadership.”

The bill clarifies the scope of NEPA reviews while keeping in place state and federal protections for clean air and clean water.  “Interruptions and delays to semiconductor manufacturing projects would undermine the goals of the CHIPS Act and exacerbate risks to our economic and national security, without providing additional benefits for environmental protections,” they conclude.

###