We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
08Intent to Designate Peru as a Major Non-Nato Ally: Message From the President of the United States (H. Doc. No. 119-116)
09Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Serious Human Rights Abuse and Corruption: Message From the President of the United States (H. Doc. No. 119-117)
10Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Global Illicit Drug Trade: Message From the President of the United States (H.
11Adjournment
1 member spoke
12Deletion of Sponsors From Public Bills and Resolutions
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
78 public bills, H.R. 6606- 6683; and 5 resolutions, H. Con. Res. 66; and H. Res. 945-948, were introduced.
Pages H5806-09
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Speaker: Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative McDowell to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H5765
Recess
The House recessed at 1:20 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
Page H5787
Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors
The House agreed to the Scalise motion to table to the resolution (H. Res. 939) impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors, by a yea-and-nay vote of 237 yeas to 140 nays with 47 answering ``present'', Roll No. 322.
Pages H5787-89
State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act
The House passed H.R. 3628, to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to add a standard related to State consideration of reliable generation, by a yea-and-nay vote of 218 yeas to 207 nays, Roll No. 323. Consideration began yesterday, December 10th.
Page H5789
H. Res. 936, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 3898), (H.R. 3383), (H.R. 3638), (H.R. 3628), (H.R. 3668), and (S. 1071), was agreed to on Wednesday, December 10th. Electric Supply Chain Act: The House passed H.R. 3638, to direct the Secretary of Energy to prepare periodic assessments and submit reports on the supply chain for the generation and transmission of electricity, by a yea-and-nay vote of 267 yeas to 159 nays, Roll No. 324. Consideration began yesterday, December 10th.
Pages H5789-90
H. Res. 936, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 3898), (H.R. 3383), (H.R. 3638), (H.R. 3628), (H.R. 3668), and (S. 1071), was agreed to on Wednesday, December 10th. Increasing Investor Opportunities Act: The House passed H.R. 3383, to amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 with respect to the authority of closed-end companies to invest in private funds, by a recorded vote of 302 ayes to 123 noes, Roll No. 328. Consideration began yesterday, December 10th.
Pages H5790-93
Rejected
Self amendment (No. 1 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-399) that was debated on December 10th that sought to strike section 307 relating to enhancing multi-class share disclosures (by a recorded vote of 54 ayes to 374 noes, Roll No. 325);
Pages H5790-91
Waters amendment (No. 3 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-399) that was debated on December 10th that sought to require investment advisers and hedge funds to perform know-your-customer (KYC) verification and implement anti-money laundering (AML) procedures for foreign clients (by a recorded vote of 211 ayes to 219 noes, Roll No. 326); and
Page H5791
Waters amendment (No. 5 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-399) that was debated on December 10th that sought to define and prohibit fees charged by SEC-registered individuals and entities that are not clearly disclosed or proportional to the services provided (by a recorded vote of 214 ayes to 215 noes, Roll No. 327).
Page H5792
H. Res. 936, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 3898), (H.R. 3383), (H.R. 3638), (H.R. 3628), (H.R. 3668), and (S. 1071), was agreed to on Wednesday, December 10th. Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act: The House passed H.R. 3898, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make targeted reforms with respect to waters of the United States and other matters, by a yea-and-nay vote of 221 yeas to 205 nays, Roll No. 330.
Pages H5768-87, H5793-94
Rejected the McDonald Rivet motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by a yea-and-nay vote of 210 yeas to 216 nays, Roll No. 329.
Pages H5793-94
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
Pages H5775-79
Agreed to
Bean (FL) (No. 1 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-399) that codifies the dredge and fill permitting programs administered by the States of Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey and clarify the law so that other states may successfully navigate the process to assume this authority;
Pages H5779-81
Babin (No. 2 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-399) that ensures that the judicial review process for Section 401 of the Clean Water Act is efficient and lays out a path for certainty in resolving such actions;
Pages H5781-82
Biggs (AZ) (No. 3 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-399) that amends the definition of ``prior converted cropland'' under the Waters of the United States rule by striking ``five years'' and inserting ``ten years'';
Pages H5782-83
Biggs (AZ) (No. 4 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-399) that directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to identify parcels of federal land suitable for aquifer recharge projects and requires the agencies to establish clear, expedited permitting pathways;
Page H5783
Crawford (No. 6 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-399) that increases the available supply of mitigation bank credits, driving down the cost curve and lowering home prices both through directly lowering the regulatory cost of building a new home and by allowing builders to use lots that the cost of mitigation today prevents them from using;
Pages H5783-85
Nunn (IA) (No. 7 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-399) that increases the available supply of mitigation bank credits, driving down the cost curve and lowering home prices both through directly lowering the regulatory cost of building a new home and by allowing builders to use lots that the cost of mitigation today prevents them from using; and
Pages H5785-86
Peters (No. 8 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-399) that authorizes the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) to accept funds for activities relating to wastewater treatment and flood control works.
Page H5786
H. Res. 936, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 3898), (H.R. 3383), (H.R. 3638), (H.R. 3628), (H.R. 3668), and (S. 1071), was agreed to on Wednesday, December 10th. Protect America's Workforce Act: The House passed H.R. 2550, to nullify the Executive Order relating to Exclusions from Federal Labor- Management Relations Programs, by a yea-and-nay vote of 231 yeas to 195 nays, Roll No. 332. Earlier, the House agreed to H. Res. 432, by a yea- and-nay vote of 232 yeas to 194 nays, Roll No. 331, which was considered on Wednesday, December 10th.
Pages H5794-H5802
Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make a correction in the enrollment of the hill S. 1071
The House agreed to H. Con. Res. 66, directing the Secretary of the Senate to make a correction in the enrollment of the hill S. 1071.
Page H5802
Presidential Messages
Read a message from the President transmitting a notification of his intent to designate the Republic of Peru as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA)--referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 119-116).
Page H5805
Read a message from the President transmitting a notification stating that the national emergency with respect to human rights abuse declared in Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, is to continue in effect beyond December 20, 2025--referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 119-117).
Page H5805
Read a message from the President transmitting a notification stating that the national emergency with respect to global illicit drug trafficking declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, is to continue in effect beyond December 15, 2025--referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 119- 118).
Page H5806
Senate Referrals
S. 1884 was held at the desk. S. 2584 was held at the desk. S. 3424 was held at the desk.
Page H5768
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate appears on page H5768. Quorum Calls--Votes: Seven yea-and-nay votes and four recorded votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H5788-89, H5789, H5789-90, H5790-91, H5791, H5792, H5792-93, H5793-94, H5794, H5794-95, and H5801-02. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 5:16 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 121 of 321 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Gracyn Stevens from Kirklin, Indiana, who won the 13th annual National Cattlemen's Beef Association National Anthem Contest. Gracyn will sing ``The Star- Spangled Banner'' at CattleCon 2026 in Nashville, Tennessee. She will also sing before both ``Cowboys Night at the Opry'' shows at the historic Ryman Auditorium.
Gracyn said that it was an honor to win this contest and represent an industry that she loves and that she will strive to make a meaningful impact on for years to come.
Gracyn Stevens says she appreciates the lessons that she learned growing up showing cattle in 4-H. The cattle industry taught her that true success is about the effort and passion put into each project.
I congratulate Gracyn on this outstanding achievement. I know she will make Indiana proud at CattleCon.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a public servant who has given nearly four decades to the people of Lewis County, Sheriff Rob Snaza.
He is a man with a gentle spirit and a decisive character. He is eager to help others, not to be helped. He is quick to apologize and forgive and find goodness in others, though he has spent his career seeing some of the ugliest things this world has to offer.
He is persistent in his trust in the Lord and a diligent encourager of those around him. He has been a source of strength to all of us, and I am confident that the eternal story of his work will go on long after he is retired.
We are profoundly grateful for the sheriff's service. I sincerely thank him for the example he has set for us all.
Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to call attention to an outrageous action that has just been undertaken by the State of California to deprive many, many young people in my district of athletic opportunities.
Truckee Unified School District, which is in my district, competes when it comes to athletics in a neighboring school district in Nevada. What is the reason for that?
Well, for sports like soccer, these are winter sports in California, but they are quite hard to play in the winter in this part of the State because there is a lot of snow. They are spring sports in Nevada. So in order to allow young people to play soccer and other sports, they compete in Nevada.
However, the State of California has just ordered Truckee Unified to compete in California, no longer giving them that option. Why? It is because Nevada doesn't have the same policy of allowing biological males to compete in women's sports.
Regardless of what you think of that particular policy, it is something that only affects a few students, and now the State of California is depriving all of these student-athletes of the opportunity to play their sport as well as subjecting them to onerous new travel arrangements.
I am urging the State of California to reverse this outrageous action.
Mr. Speaker, and still I rise to announce that last night I called for the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, for threatening judges and for calling for the execution of Members of Congress.
If ever there was a person who ought to be impeached, it is Donald John Trump. Now, there are many people who don't want to see this happen. They don't want to vote for impeachment.
Well, there were people who didn't want to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, but they marched on. I shall march on.
I have been told that this vote will take place sometime after 1:30 today. I assure you that I will be here for that vote. I will also speak on Friday for about 1 hour after about 11 o'clock. I will explain more about it at that time.
This President is a reckless, ruthless, lawless person who doesn't deserve the title of President of the United States of America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to send my greatest gratitude to Representative Harry Warren as he retires after eight terms serving the people of Rowan County in North Carolina's 76th District.
Representative Warren has been a steady, respected voice in Raleigh, and folks back home knew that they could always count on him. He listened, he worked hard, and he treated everyone with fairness and respect.
As someone who represents Rowan County in Congress, I have seen the impact of his work up close. He has been a strong advocate for the community, a trusted partner, and a genuinely good man. We are grateful for his service, and I wish him all the best in his next chapter.
Mr. Speaker, for months I have been sharing the story of Benjamin Guerrero-Cruz, a constituent of mine who is a senior in high school. He was detained by ICE in August while walking his dog.
In the span of 24 hours, ICE shuffled Benjamin between detention centers and across State lines without his family knowing. I visited Benjamin at the Adelanto Detention Center and observed a recent court hearing of his, and my team has been working with his family on this case throughout the ordeal.
Today, I am excited and relieved to report that after months of living through a nightmare, Benjamin is home. My heart goes out to his family, especially his mother, who can hold her son again after months of fear and uncertainty at the hands of ICE. No family should ever have to live through this.
I will continue showing up to detention facilities to hold ICE and this administration accountable for the terror that they are forcing families to live through each day.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that Benjamin is home, and I hope he and his family can begin the healing process.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the Trump administration's illegal efforts to dismantle the Department of Education.
The President and the Secretary of Education can call this plan whatever they want, but the bottom line is that this is about defunding public education and putting taxpayer dollars into the hands of private institutions who do not face the same standards and protocols as public schools.
The Department of Education protects students with disabilities, supports rural and low-income schools, and helps make college more affordable for students across the country.
In Delaware, $530 million in Federal education funding supports teachers across our State. Removing that funding would mean students without teachers, schools without support, and communities left behind.
I have stood arm in arm with Delaware educators, parents, and students who are pushing back. They are asking for a fair shot, and we should be investing in their future, not abandoning them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and courage of Ralph Lawrence Carr, the 29th Governor of Colorado, whose birthday we celebrate today.
He was in office when Executive Order 9066 was issued, the order that permitted the mass incarceration of 120,000 Japanese Americans, including my grandparents and parents during World War II.
A staunch Republican, he refused to comply with the order and instead opened the State of Colorado to Japanese Americans fleeing the Federal Government. To a group of farmers concerned with his support of Japanese Americans, Governor Carr said, ``An American citizen of Japanese descent has the same rights as any other citizen. If you harm them, you must first harm me.''
Mr. Speaker, the Governor lost re-election, largely due to his defense of Japanese Americans. Let his courage be a lesson to us today as we, once again, see a dark tide spread across our country.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many issues in our country right now that are affecting our people, but one of the biggest concerns is an urgent matter that on December 31 of this year, premiums for people's health insurance are going to be skyrocketing because of the expiration of the premium tax credits.
We have heard so much talk. We have heard so many petty partisan messages, people attacking each other, but right now, we have to actually do something about this issue.
In my district, if you are a family of four and make $130,000 a year, right now under the premium tax credits you have to pay 8.5 percent of your income for your health insurance. That is about $10,000 or $11,000 a year.
Those premiums are going to go up to $30,000 on January 1. People are going to go broke. They are not going to buy health insurance. When less people are on health insurance, everybody's health insurance rates go up.
Right now, there are three discharge petitions in this House giving people options as to how to address this, two of which are bipartisan, negotiated ideas. There is one for a 1-year extension and another for a 2-year extension.
Mr. Speaker, we need the Speaker of the House, the majority leader, and the President of the United States of America to engage in this issue. Pick a way forward and solve this problem that is affecting so many Americans.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about the word ``affordability'' around here these days. I am going to touch on the burdensome regulations that make the cost of everything go up.
There is a lot of worry about what the cost of beef is, the cost of groceries in general, but what is helping drive up the cost of beef? I will tell you what is hurting the cost of producing it for growers is the introduction of more and more wolves to the areas where they grow their product, like in northeast California, Colorado, and other areas around the country.
What is the issue there? Under the Endangered Species Act, somehow the wolf is still seen as an endangered species, even though there are tens of thousands of them scattered across the country. A lot of them end up in the upper Midwest.
The rule seems to be that you have to have them in every single county, in every rural area. Otherwise, they still count as endangered.
It is costing growers thousands and thousands of dollars, while the government is operating many millions of dollars of an operation to spread these wolves around. The latest scheme is to pull them out of places like Washington and bring them down into Colorado, capturing wolves that are already there.
Why are we doing this? Why are we driving the cost of food up? Why are we making it impossible for the growers to be able to keep their livestock alive as well as the wildlife that are devastating areas because of a nonendangered animal?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished service of Mario Cordero, a visionary leader who has served on the Federal Maritime Commission and also as a member of the Long Beach Harbor Commissioners, and he currently serves as the CEO of the Port of Long Beach since 2017.
Under his guidance, the port achieved record cargo movement and advanced modernization projects, but what distinguishes his leadership is not only growth, but it is the values behind it.
Early in his service, Mr. Cordero proposed the Green Port Policy, a transformational shift that made the port an environmental leader. Twenty years later, the port has dramatically less pollution and a landmark commitment to zero-emissions operations.
Mr. Cordero's story is uniquely American. The son of immigrants from Mexico and the first in his family to attend college, he embodies the promise of opportunity when service meets purpose. His leadership will have a lasting impact.
Mr. Speaker, today, we recognize Mario Cordero for his extraordinary service, congratulate him on his retirement, and wish him fulfillment in the years ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise here today on behalf of the 2026 National School Counselor of the Year, Ms. Danielle Crankfield of Annapolis.
Ms. Crankfield of Crofton High School in Anne Arundel County is the first Marylander to earn this national distinction for going above and beyond and inspiring young minds.
When she first arrived at Crofton, she found that African American and Hispanic students were underrepresented in advanced classes, so she created a framework for teachers when making course recommendations and worked from the ground up to better publicize high-level courses for students.
Thanks to her efforts, the gaps in advanced coursework decreased and now these advanced classes more closely reflect the composition and diversity of our students.
As we all know, good teachers, good counselors, and good classes stay with us for a lifetime. I would not be in Congress today if I did not have my own Ms. Crankfield.
Mr. Speaker, closing disparities and exposing more students to new ideas and opportunities sets them up for success in the years to come and perhaps even a seat in this very Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to condemn the betrayal of President Trump and his Republican majorities. Trump called himself the fertilization President and promised to expand access to IVF, but his Speaker of the House just blocked critical IVF expansion for military families.
The American people overwhelmingly want to expand access to IVF. It is what Donald Trump promised them as he was running for President last year. I quote word for word: ``Under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment, or we are going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.''
Here we are, and the Republican Congress is sending a bill to President Trump's desk that fails to expand coverage for military families to do just that.
The brave servicemembers who put their lives on the line for our country and our freedoms will not be able to access the care they need to grow their families if they suffer from infertility.
Mr. Speaker, this is sadly only the latest betrayal by the Republican majority talking a big game about being profamily but blocking policies that would actually support them. It is beyond disappointing. It is cruel.
Mr. Speaker, with the House's authorization of the National Defense Authorization Act, we are actively safeguarding the American people and making strategic investments in eastern North Carolina.
At Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, we authorized $54 million for the child development center. During multiple base visits, we toured the existing center, which is in dire need of repair, met with staff, and visited the precious children of our servicemembers, who are in dire need of this support.
We also authorized $41 million for Seymour Johnson's Combat Arms Training and Maintenance Complex to ensure our airmen are ready to deploy.
Additionally, we authorized a timeline extension for the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Flightline Utilities Modernization project in full support of our F-35s.
Our investments here in eastern North Carolina will not only strengthen our economy but also contribute to America's safety.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary career of San Ramon, California, Police Chief Denton Carlson as he retires after 27 years of service.
Chief Carlson began his law enforcement career in 1998 and later joined the San Ramon Police Department during its founding in 2007. Quickly rising through the ranks, he became captain in 2017 and chief in 2022.
Chief Carlson additionally served as the director of the city's Office of Emergency Management from 2015 to 2022. His leadership was instrumental in launching the police department's community resource and crime prevention division and its social media and emergency communications systems.
Deeply respected in the community by all the citizens, please join me in thanking Chief Carlson for his extraordinary and many years of public service and for public safety and congratulating him on a well- deserved retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3898.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 936 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3898.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell) to preside over the Committee of the Whole.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3898) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make targeted reforms with respect to waters of the United States and other matters, and for other purposes, with Mr. McDowell in the chair.
The CHAIR. The House is in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of H.R. 3898, which the Clerk will report by title.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in section 1 of House Resolution 936 and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 3898, the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act, or the PERMIT Act, which will make permitting processes under the Clean Water Act more efficient, consistent, and transparent while continuing to protect our Nation's water quality.
Our Clean Water Act permitting regime is broken.
When it takes up to 18 months to receive a permit under just the Clean Water Act to build a pipeline, dam, road, pond, or home, something is simply wrong.
When wastewater utilities are being sued by radical environmentalists because the EPA didn't give them a permit they could trust, something is wrong.
When one State can weaponize the Clean Water Act to stop a pipeline that would allow citizens in other States to move off heating oil in the winter to a cheaper and more reliable source of energy, for reasons not remotely related to water quality, something is wrong.
When the Federal Government is allowed to write water quality standards that no one can afford without passing on costs to the ratepayers, or for which the technology to achieve such standards isn't even available in this country, something is wrong.
I believe that regulations should be simple to understand, achievable, and easy to follow. Good process often leads to good decisionmaking, more consistent outcomes, and prosperity, and that is what this bill seeks to achieve.
The partnership between the private sector, States, and the Federal Government envisioned by the Clean Water Act has worked to improve water quality nationwide. This is a very good thing. We all share the goal of achieving clean water. However, 50 years after its passage, the Clean Water Act needs modernization. It is just as simple as that.
This bill makes commonsense reforms, such as clarifying the section 401 process to stop it from being weaponized; codifying longstanding, bipartisan exemptions from the definition of waters of the United States; placing clear timelines on judicial review for permits; and increasing transparency in the development of water quality standards.
It also directs the Corps to eliminate the backlog of outstanding section 404 permit applications and jurisdictional determinations and eliminate duplicative and unnecessary permitting processes for areas such as pesticides, aerial fire-retardant use, and so much more.
The bottom line is that without reforming the Clean Water Act, America cannot efficiently build roads, bridges, pipelines, ponds, dams, levees, airports, homes, farms, and other infrastructure that we need.
This bill acknowledges that we can both protect our natural resources and allow for development that benefits everyone in this country. Because of this, H.R. 3898 enjoys support from a wide range of stakeholders, from water utilities to energy developers, the construction industry, farmers, and Main Street businesses.
I urge my colleagues who support commonsense solutions to vote in favor of H.R. 3898.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act, but I rise for so much more than just simply to oppose this bill.
The Clean Water Act was enacted into law 50 years ago at a time when
The Clean Water Act was not a perfect bill. No bill ever is. I will be the first to admit it needs reform, but this bill is not it.
Mr. Chair, while I rise today in opposition to this bill, I rise for so much more than that. I rise for the affordability crisis that is crippling the American Dream. This bill would shift costs from polluters to rural America, Tribes, and disadvantaged communities.
This is personal for me. Back home in Michigan our families are already struggling with the cost of clean water. The PERMIT Act will exacerbate this reality and task our most vulnerable communities with bearing the increased costs of polluters. I say let's hold the polluters accountable.
H.R. 3898 will also put these disadvantaged communities' public health at risk, jacking up the prices of their healthcare on top of their utility bills. I rise for affordability.
I also rise against the increasing contamination of PFAS, toxic forever chemicals, in our water. Communities throughout west Michigan are working to combat PFAS contamination throughout our rivers and streams. This bill would protect PFAS polluters who put our families in harm's way.
The PERMIT Act will effectively place the responsibility for treating toxic pollution, including PFAS, lead, mercury, and arsenic toward the American taxpayer.
Mr. Chair, I also rise for States' rights. The majority is falsely claiming that certain States are abusing their authority, their literal States' rights, if they deny traditional energy projects in their States.
The States of Washington and New York have provided the committee with documents outlining that the projects they have denied would have failed to meet the State water quality standards, violated their State environmental policy acts, and would have adverse environmental impacts. The GOP is ignoring that fact and weaponizing false claims to weaken State and Tribal authority.
I thought my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were supportive of increased State control over regulations. The PERMIT Act would weaken the ability of States like my home State of Michigan to pursue more rigorous protections for local waters and make our communities more vibrant. I rise for States' rights.
Mr. Chair, I also rise for real permitting reform. We need it now more than ever to help increase the accessibility and the flexibility of permits that are issued for projects across the country, but not at the expense of our clean water.
We have lost over 50 percent of our wetlands in the United States of America. That comes at an increased cost. At a time when costs are rising and flooding becomes more frequent, destroying just 1 acre of wetland will increase costs by $8,000 in additional payouts by American taxpayers through the National Flood Insurance Program. We simply cannot afford the PERMIT Act.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee chair and the bill's sponsor.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his leadership on our committee and for this piece of legislation, as well as all my colleagues who had input into this piece of legislation.
Mr. Chair, it is a great piece of commonsense legislation. I tell folks all the time I have got more years behind me than in front of me. One of the reasons that I came to Washington, D.C., was to make sure that my kids and the next generation had the same opportunities that I did when I was growing up.
This piece of legislation addresses that. It is one of many pieces, but it addresses that with the fact that all we are doing is asking for the Federal Government to become more efficient and more productive. When we do that, we make life more affordable for everyone.
Mr. Chair, it just does not make common sense that it takes over 10 years to build a road out. It does not make sense when we spend over 7 years fighting for permits and fighting frivolous lawsuits with environmentalists on a build-out plan of 2\1/2\ or 3 years.
It doesn't make common sense when an electric generating power company wants to build a natural gas facility but they will miss the economic growth because it takes over 10 years to get a permit to lay the pipeline.
It doesn't make common sense when our rural communities out there are struggling. The water treatment facilities are worn out and they are old, but they can't participate in the economic growth that is coming because it will take them over a decade to get a permit. That is not just to mention the fact this bill addresses clarity for our farmers out there or more affordable homebuilding.
Mr. Chair, I know this is not a big, sexy headline topic, but this is an important piece of legislation. It will help improve efficiency and productivity with our Federal Government and make sure that life is more affordable so that these young people can get out there and chase their version of the American Dream.
Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. Let's get H.R. 3898 passed out of the House and sent over to the Senate.
Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Scholten for yielding time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose the dirty water act. This bill will make it more difficult to keep our water clean and will, ironically, add more uncertainty to the permitting process, just the opposite of what we need to have happen. This bill guts Federal, State, Tribal, and local authority and resources to attain clean water and protect locally important water bodies.
First, this bill significantly restricts Federal oversight and regulatory authorities under the Clean Water Act. The current administration has already acted to slash Federal funding for clean water and eliminate agency staff. This bill compounds those efforts and will leave Federal agencies powerless to fulfill their responsibilities under the Clean Water Act.
Second, the bill undermines the partnership that the Federal Government has with States and Tribes to prevent pollution, weakening States' and Tribes' ability to better protect their own water. The result will be more pollution in our Nation's rivers, streams, and lakes, thanks to loopholes, legal shields, and limited oversight of polluters.
Third, this bill will end up slowing projects by increasing regulatory uncertainty and delay. Democrats want to pass bills that invest in infrastructure and get projects done faster. That is why we passed the bipartisan infrastructure law. It invested in all types of infrastructure for communities nationwide. Fully funding projects and the Federal agencies charged with approving them is the quickest way to get this infrastructure built.
Instead, this bill, when paired with efforts to cut funding, as well as other Federal water infrastructure programs, will slow down investments in cleaner, greener, safer, and more accessible State and local projects.
Under this bill, communities of all sizes will end up with dirtier water and be left with the cost of cleanup. This will hurt rural communities and minority communities. It will hurt them especially hard, as well as other communities struggling financially under the policies of the current administration.
This bill shifts the cost of pollution from polluters to American families who will have to spend more for safe drinking water and access to water-related recreational areas if such resources are even still available.
Members of this committee on a bipartisan basis have supported predictability in regulating clean water, and there is another way. We don't have to choose between clean water and a robust economy. We can have both. My State is a great example. It is defined by its clean water, including the Puget Sound and hundreds of lakes and thousands of miles of rivers and streams throughout Washington.
We all know that rivers, streams, and wetlands are intrinsically connected. The health of the waters in my State and its water-related economy depend upon a strong partnership with the Federal Government and a level playing field among its upstream users and downstream neighbors, including local Tribal communities.
During the consideration of this bill in the committee, my Democratic colleagues offered several amendments to fix the loopholes, liability shields, and limited oversight for polluters contained in this bill. These amendments targeted the most egregious provisions of this bill, not every provision of the bill.
It targeted provisions that eviscerated Federal and State clean water agencies; provisions that made it easier for polluters to put more toxic and cancer-causing chemicals in waters such as PFAS, arsenic, and pesticides; and provisions that endanger not only our own health but the health of local, regional, and State economies. These were all defeated on party-line votes, unfortunately.
Honestly, I do look forward to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee returning to its bipartisan work and creating effective legislation that will upgrade our infrastructure, that will build our economy and create jobs, all while protecting our waters.
Mr. Chair, unfortunately, the outcome of this bill, if enacted, will be increasing pollution and contamination of our waters. I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I would like to point out that in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we can disagree, oppose, debate, and we remain friends both within our parties and across the aisle. I am proud of the committee for that, both the minority and the majority side. In fact, I am very proud of that aspect.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).
Mr. Chairman, I, too, thank Chairman Graves for his leadership in advancing commonsense permitting reform that cuts red tape and restores accountability to Federal decisionmaking.
I am proud that one of our top priorities this Congress, the Water Quality Criteria Development and Transparency Act, is included in this package. This legislation will finally bring clarity and consistency to the Clean Water Act permitting process by requiring the EPA to publish clear, accessible guidance on water quality certifications.
For Utah and other Western States, where water is scarce and infrastructure projects are critical to our growth, this reform is a game changer. Too often, confusing, and inconsistent permitting rules delay or derail projects that communities depend on, whether it is water storage, energy development, or transportation.
The PERMIT Act is about delivering certainty and efficiency without compromising environmental standards. I am proud to support it, and I look forward to getting this across the finish line for Utahns and for Americans across the country.
Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose this bill, H.R. 3898, because it is an affront to environmental stewardship everywhere. It undermines the 50 years of vital, clean water progress and weakens the ability of States like New Jersey to control pollution in its own waters.
Supporting localities in their efforts to provide clean water is one of my top priorities as a member of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. I know firsthand the danger of aging stormwater, sewer, and flood infrastructure to our environment and health.
It is unacceptable that this bill would allow polluters to release raw or partially untreated sewage into our waters because they believe that the water treatment technology is much too expensive.
These environmental rollbacks will only make our wealthiest polluters richer and our riverfront communities sicker.
Stormwater infrastructure is critical. Our communities must have the tools that they need to keep people safe.
That is why I offered an amendment to require the EPA to certify before implementing this bill that it will not increase sewer overflows, stormwater discharges, or flooding risks. Unfortunately, the amendment was blocked by the House majority.
These terrible and horrible hazards endanger personal property, businesses, local economies, critical infrastructure, and, most importantly, human life and safety. This bill allows irreparable, preventable damage in our communities, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the PERMIT Act introduced by my good friend and chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, Congressman Mike Collins.
This bold legislation delivers a long-overdue blow to the radical environmental agenda that has weaponized the Clean Water Act, paving the way for critical infrastructure projects to move forward and be free from the regulatory shackles imposed by this Washington swamp.
For too long, the Federal Government and environmental activists have waged legal warfare on our farmers, small businesses, and job-creating projects, causing endless delays and litigation.
Mr. Trump's vision is clear: America is building again.
My Judicial Review Timeline Clarity Act, which is included in this vital permitting reform package, establishes a strict 60-day window to challenge section 404 permits once the Army Corps of Engineers grants authorization.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act exists to safeguard our waters, not empower radical environmentalists to harass hardworking Americans with legal hurdles years after permits are granted.
Let me be clear. The days of radical environmentalists holding our Nation's projects hostage with their antigrowth and antijob agenda are over.
The PERMIT Act slashes red tape, ends bureaucratic overreach, and restores the freedom to build an America that works for its people again.
Mr. Chair, I commend Chairman Graves and Subcommittee Chairman Collins for their leadership in advancing this pro-growth, America First legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the great State of Michigan (Ms. McDonald Rivet).
Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Chair, let me be clear. We need permitting reform. Red tape and layers of bureaucracy have crippled cities working to add housing, alternative energy sources, critical economic development projects, and, ultimately, it gets in the way of jobs. I concede that. It gets in the way of progress and even stops our agenda of lowering the costs for struggling families.
I support the idea of what this bill is trying to accomplish. However, the PERMIT Act in this current form is not the solution. It lacks common sense and ultimately hurts middle-class and working-class Americans.
Let's start here: The efficiency in government cannot come at the expense of clean water and lowering costs for all Americans.
If passed as is, the PERMIT Act will increase pollution in our public waters and strip State and Tribal rights to effectively protect their own waters. It will also dramatically increase water bills across the country, particularly in rural communities.
I proudly represent the city of Flint. We know devastating consequences of a lack of oversight of water quality. Over a decade later, my constituents are still dealing with the health and economic fallout, and the trust in government in our home communities will never be the same.
Efficiency is important. American industry will falter and families will suffer if unnecessary red tape gets in the way of innovation and building. However, as we cut red tape, we need to do so in a smart way, not in a way that
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would prohibit the implementation of any provisions in this bill that increase water pollution, jeopardize States' abilities to set their own water standards, or increase water utility costs for Americans.
This isn't radical environmentalism. This is moving forward on permit reform with common sense.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the PERMIT Act, which includes important provisions for my own bill, the Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act.
In the West, we live with the reality that a single spark can turn into a forest disaster instantly, like we saw 11 months ago in Pacific Palisades and in Altadena.
In my district, the city of Paradise is still rebuilding from the 2018 Camp fire. Every season brings the same concern as well, like the disappearance of the towns of Greenville and Canyon Dam in Plumas county.
We need every tool to keep ready to prevent a new, small fire from turning into the next catastrophe. One of the most important tools we have, that the Forest Service relies on, is the use of aerial fire retardant, that pinkish red stuff you see coming out of the DC-10s and many other aircraft. It effectively slows the spread of fast-moving fires and gives the hand crews and trucks on the ground a chance to get control. However, a lawsuit by an environmental group claimed the Forest Service can't use this retardant without a Clean Water Act permit, even though it has used it for dozens of years very successfully.
A judge agreed, and now that group is working to block the use of this retardant altogether while the Forest Service waits for permits to grind through an EPA process. Thankfully, a temporary stay on the lawsuit didn't take this critical tool away starting 2 years ago.
Mr. Chair, 47 States have delegated authority under the Clean Water Act. That means that even after the EPA issues a permit, those States, including my home of California, would have to issue their own permits. This would create a maze of different requirements and bog down the Forest Service in red tape at the exact moment when speed matters.
My bill fixes that.
The Clean Water Act already recognizes the difference between fighting fires and causing pollution. My bill ensures that the aerial fire retardant, which is already subject to strict Forest Service rules, is treated the same way as runoff from other fire control activities, so our firefighters aren't stuck waiting on paperwork and permit approvals when lives and towns are in harm's way.
We have seen what happens when delays allow fires to get ahead of us. California alone has lost over 13.5 million acres in the last decade.
We can't afford to tie the hands of the people trying to stop these fires. I urge passage. Please vote for the PERMIT Act.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 3898.
Clean water used to be something we all agreed upon. The Clean Water Act was originally passed by an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority because we understood that clean water is not a luxury. It is really a basic right. Now, Republicans in this Chamber are doing everything they can to roll back and repeal what is left of the Clean Water Act.
Among the many disastrous provisions in this bill, the PERMIT Act would give President Trump the authority to declare any body of water exempt from Clean Water Act protections. It is just a stunning betrayal of the American people.
Outside these walls, Americans overwhelmingly support the Clean Water Act. Survey after survey has found that Americans believe the government should do more to protect our lakes, rivers, and streams, not less.
This should not be a hard vote. I urge my colleagues to protect clean water and urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3898.
Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Graves and Chairman Collins for their hard work on this pragmatic and effective piece of legislation.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act, which would cut red tape within the Clean Water Act's permitting processes. This legislation will provide much-needed regulatory certainty for America's farmers, small businesses, manufacturers, home and road builders, and many other permit holders.
My colleagues across the aisle continue to promote the fallacy that improving permitting processes comes at the expense of the environment. Congress can continue to be good stewards of our environment while also removing regulations and processes that do not protect the environment but rather create obstacles that prevent economic growth and prosperity in Ohio and across the country.
Among these provisions, the PERMIT Act makes commonsense reforms to the Clean Water Act permitting process that will continue to protect our Nation's water resources. These reforms increase transparency and provide clarity and consistency for permit holders so they can maintain compliance with the law and provide reasonable guardrails to prevent the weaponization of these permitting processes.
In particular, I am proud that my bill, the Confidence in Clean Water Permits Act, is included in the underlying legislation. My bill provides reasonable protections for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit holders against frivolous lawsuits if they are acting in good faith and within the scope of their permits. Permit holders who are in compliance with these permits, and who often provide well-paying jobs to Americans, should not be punished with frivolous lawsuits when they comply with the terms of their permits.
I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the PERMIT Act to provide regulatory relief and certainty under the Clean Water Act for businesses in Ohio and across the Nation.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just need to say that I agree with so much of what my colleague said about the need for real permitting reform, but that is not this bill. The PERMIT Act is nothing more than a dirty water bill dressed up in a fancy name.
We need to come back to the table, reject this bill, and pass real and meaningful permitting reform that will not pass the cost of polluted waters on to vulnerable, rural, and Tribal communities. Let's come back to the drawing board and reject the PERMIT Act.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the PERMIT Act, Republicans' latest attempt to help corporate polluters dodge responsibility.
This alarming bill would weaken the Army Corps' permitting process and EPA's Clean Water Act authorities, threatening my district, where the Clean Water Act protects our waters, our salmon, and our people.
Moreover, this bill would impose an unworkably short 60-day review of dredge-and-fill permits. Two months is simply not enough time for underresourced communities to understand the effects that a project could have, let alone to mount any meaningful opposition to protect themselves.
Access to judicial review ensures that communities, Tribes, and local governments can challenge decisions and raise potential harms that have not yet been considered. Without it, agency actions just go completely unchecked.
This legislation prioritizes polluters over people's clean water and public health, and it especially puts all the harms disproportionately on our low-income and rural constituents and our communities of color. They deserve so much better. They deserve our support, rather than throwing them under the bus.
Our permitting systems do need to be improved, and we have found a way in our State to do that. This is a false solution that attacks essential clean water safeguards and undermines access to our courts.
I oppose it, and I hope, as the ranking member said, that we can come back and do real permitting reform that doesn't throw communities under the bus and protects our waters.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding. I appreciate the time, and I appreciate my colleague Mike Collins' work on this commonsense package of clean water reforms.
I am grateful that my bill, H.R. 3934, the Water Quality Standards Attainability Act, is included. My bill serves to maintain State and local leadership in setting their water quality standards under the Clean Water Act.
Let me cite a compelling example of why this legislation is necessary. In 2020, the EPA approved in Indianapolis, in my district, new standards for stormwater management. These updates were an aid to ensure that Hoosiers had access to clean water and that our localities were able to deliver on this responsibility. In early '24, under the Biden EPA, this approval was revoked for the infrastructure updates that were already well underway, costing our taxpayers needless millions.
This unpredictability has been a practice of our Federal Government for too long. It is time our local governments and taxpayers have the transparency and certainty with which to cost-effectively invest in our infrastructure.
My legislation will ensure that the regulatory whiplash is in our rearview mirror. My bill will ensure that when States write their rules, they consider affordability and accessibility to water treatment technologies.
Through this legislation, we are providing certainty and predictability in the EPA approval process and a little Hoosier common sense in delivery. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Chair, 2.8 million acres of farmland protected; 35,000 miles of fish passages opened; nearly 1,500 new public water access sites established; upgrades to every large wastewater treatment plant in the watershed to improve water quality; and the largest oyster reef restoration in the world: These are just five of the biggest wins in the last 43 years of the landmark Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. In fact, it was just updated last week after years of careful and difficult negotiation and public input to unite States across the bay to think bigger and bolder to restore the beloved watershed we all share.
We know that water does not adhere to arbitrary political boundaries. Pollution in Pennsylvania will and does flow downstream to Maryland and Virginia.
All States rely on the EPA to conduct oversight and enforcement of pollution entering our waterways and to hold everyone accountable to our shared communities.
Yet, the bill before us today, the PERMIT Act, attempts to dismantle this partnership between States and the EPA by watering down the key enforcement mechanisms that are needed to ensure compliance with evidence-based pollution standards.
I know these bipartisan, multistate partnerships are not easy. I was a part of them before I joined this Chamber. They take years of collaboration.
Mr. Chairman, that should be fostered and not dismantled by this and future Congresses, which is why I urge my colleagues to support this decades-long partnership by voting ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act.
Our permitting system is a great burden to our Nation. Permitting delays infrastructure projects indefinitely and stops us from bringing critical energy sources online. It also deters investment in our communities. Make no mistake: Permitting is holding back America.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 3898, the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act, also known as the PERMIT Act, aims to unleash the American economy. It is a package of commonsense reforms that will reduce regulatory burdens, establish certainty, and increase transparency in our permitting system.
This bill will, in turn, create opportunities for homebuilders, our farmers, loggers, and our small business owners. It will entice them to invest in projects that help our local communities grow.
Mr. Chair, I will highlight section 12 of H.R. 3898. Section 12 is the language of my bill, the Reducing Permitting Uncertainty Act.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to veto a dredge-and-fill permit. However, under Biden, the EPA took it upon itself to proactively reject permits and retroactively take away permits.
In a country of due process, it is absurd that a government can dictate whether a project is good or bad even before an application is filed. The fact that the government can waltz in and shut down years of hard work is staggering.
This section of H.R. 3898 is not a dramatic departure from the status quo. It clarifies timelines and brings certainty. When an application is pending, the EPA can determine whether or not to veto. It is simple.
It does not alter the process, nor does it deprive the EPA of its right to veto. It returns our process to one based on science and facts rather than politics.
Mr. Chair, I thank Congressman Collins for his efforts on this package of reforms, and I look forward to supporting it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, again, you will hear no argument from me about the need for permitting reform.
We do need reform, but this bill is not what we need. It doesn't just cut red tape. It cuts all of the tape that has protected our clean water for 50 years since the Clean Water Act was signed into law.
The reason we don't have horror stories of rivers catching on fire and the Great Lakes being declared dead is because of the protection that the Clean
Mr. Chairman, I will be the first to admit that we need reform of our permitting process, but this dirty water bill is not it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, our waterways and our waters are precious resources, and we need to advance policies that protect that precious resource and certainly need policies that enable us to be resourceful in the use of this commodity.
In my youth, growing up in my home and hometown of Amsterdam, New York, if you wanted to know what color the Mohawk Carpet Mills were dying their carpets that day, all you had to do was look at the flow of the Chuctanunda Creek as it emptied into the Mohawk River.
With the passage of the Clean Water Act, Congress took historic action to protect public health and improve the quality of drinking water across our great country.
Our rivers, our brooks, and our streams are the center of our communities, and we have come so far to protect and strengthen these resources for the generations that will follow.
Instead of strengthening our waterways, this bill that we are debating today on the House floor is a wholesale attack on what is left of the Clean Water Act. It is a one-two punch that would allow more forever chemicals and harmful pollutants to be discharged into our waterways with little regulation, while diluting the ability for States and Tribes to take action to protect their communities.
I continue to believe that there is a genuine interest in Congress on both sides of the aisle to advance durable, bipartisan solutions to meet our Nation's energy demands, to create good jobs, and to safeguard our communities and environment.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my Republican colleagues to focus on real solutions instead of giveaways to polluters. This special interest crowd that is getting different treatment to pollute and not respect our resources has got to stop.
Mr. Chair, I urge Members to please oppose this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Aaron Bean, for introducing this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, after working hard to obtain Federal approval in the first Trump administration, a weaponized court system pulled Florida's 404 permitting out from under us, even though our program was thoroughly vetted and approved in 2020.
Florida's DEP has become a national model for environmental protection, and Washington should be learning from us, not tying our hands.
The amendment makes it clear that once a State assumption program is approved, the EPA cannot withdraw it unless Congress explicitly says so--no more regulatory whiplash, no more political games.
For Florida, this is critical. It protects our section 404 program, and it ends the uncertainty caused by conflicting court rulings and shifting interpretations in Washington.
Meanwhile, the Army Corps of Engineers got a gut punch with an overwhelming caseload while working hard to try to solve dozens of projects that an activist judge has placed on hold in our communities that they desperately need, like stormwater, schools, and even sewer treatment plants not under construction, protecting our most precious environments. But we can't unless the permits can be issued.
This is about predictability, federalism, and letting the States manage their own waterways. It is proinfrastructure, prodevelopment, but, most importantly, it is proenvironmental protection.
Mr. Chairman, we know that the dirty water bill reduces significant oversight for the Clean Water Act, and it is really important to know that polluters are pushing to weaken this--not residents, not families, and not communities that are directly impacted.
This is about discharging toxic chemicals into our water bodies. I want Members to understand that last year, Congress rejected--again, Congress rejected last year many of the changes being proposed now in the PERMIT Act because it had damaging impacts to the health of families, the economy, and our environment.
Mr. Chairman, it is not just this bill. This week, Republicans are voting now on five dirty energy bills that attack communities I represent. These bills boost dirty energy power plants even as energy companies are transitioning toward cleaner energy.
Dirty energy plants have historically been located in communities that look like mine, in rural communities and minority communities. In Michigan, we already know that certain communities are facing a disproportionate burden from electricity generation.
Just ask the residents of southwest Detroit and the Downriver region in Michigan. They have felt the harm and seen the harm, and they lived the experience of being next to DTE's oil-fired power plant that made them sick.
Mr. Chairman, it is immoral, and Congress must fix it. Yet, many of the pro-polluting Republicans in this Chamber want to talk about making electricity with ``reliable generation facilities,'' when they really are talking about more expensive dirty energy.
There is nothing ``reliable'' about air pollution giving our children asthma. Children not only have the right to be able to not go hungry, but they have a right to breathe clean air. The only thing folks can rely on right now with these plants is getting sicker.
I proposed two amendments this week, Mr. Chair, to protect our communities, but they were rejected. They would have made sure that we have full information and transparency on the disparate impacts and cumulative impacts on minority, rural, disadvantaged, and Tribal communities and would have added safeguards, safeguards that would have been able to define what real reliable generation facilities are.
Again, they were not interested. Why? It is because we know that clean water and clean air is never a priority. It is always going to be about profits for corporate, polluting donors. If you want reliable generation facilities, make them clean so they are not actively poisoning our neighbors, destroying our communities, and making them less attractive places to live, work, and invest.
I promise, if you go to your community and ask them about this dirty water permit bill that you guys are pushing for, as well as what was passed with the energy bills, overwhelmingly, across party lines, they will tell you to protect our land, our soil, our water, our environment, and our health.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to cosponsor the PERMIT Act, commonsense legislation to help America build the infrastructure we need faster and more responsibly.
I am especially grateful that my bill, the Jurisdictional Determination Backlog Reduction Act, is included as a part of this package. Across the country, Americans depend on timely answers from the Army Corps so they know whether their projects require Clean Water Act permits, but the Corps is not keeping up. Right now, thousands of determinations and wetland delineations are stuck in a backlog, leaving projects in limbo.
My proposal directs the Corps to clear this backlog so that landowners and builders get the determinations and clarity they need to move forward in a timely and responsible way.
I thank Chairman Graves, Chairman Collins, and the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee staff for their work putting together a bill that cuts red tape, reduces duplicative reviews, and gives farmers, ranchers, utilities, and communities in Colorado and across the country the regulatory certainty that they need to build.
I look forward to advancing this important legislation.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the PERMIT Act. For over 50 years, the Clean Water Act has protected rivers, streams, and wetlands that our communities rely on. This bill undermines these protections by shielding polluters from responsibility for toxic waste like PFAS, lead, mercury, and arsenic, and by limiting Federal review and community input when drinking water is at risk.
I filed three straightforward amendments to protect public health: One to require cumulative impacts and groundwater reviews for projects near community drinking water aquifers, like the one that supplies Memphis; a second one to restore oversight and public participation for nationwide permits, protections that would have prevented the Byhalia pipeline from being rushed through my district; and a third one to require the EPA to certify that this bill will not increase exposure to harmful contaminants.
Unfortunately, none were made in order. Therefore, I oppose the bill and urge a ``no'' vote.
Permitting reform should not come at the expense of children's and seniors' health, clean drinking water, or communities with a history of industrial exposure. I do this because of a commitment to the safety of the people.
Looking at my dear friend, Mr. Graves, I hate to speak against one of his bills because he was such a good ally when I was on Transportation, and I have great respect for him, but nevertheless I am against the bill.
Mr. Chairman, listening to our friends on the other side of the aisle reminds me of what one of my favorite Presidents of the United States said, Mr. Reagan. He said: You know, our friends on the other side of the aisle, they know so much that just isn't so.
Mr. Chair, I am proud to support this much-needed effort to modernize our Nation's water permitting system. I thank Chairman Graves, Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Collins, and many members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who have worked to develop this package.
I also appreciate the inclusion of three bills that I authored: The Nationwide Permitting Improvement Act, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, and the Improving Water Quality Certifications and American Energy Infrastructure Act.
Each addresses well-documented breakdowns in our Nation's permitting process which delay critical projects, drive up costs, and do nothing to actually improve water quality.
The Nationwide Permitting Improvement Act narrows the scope of the Clean Water Act section 401 certifications to actual water quality impacts and establishes timelines and procedural guardrails of State- level review to prevent misuse and delay.
The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act removes the need for duplicative National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for pesticide use if the pesticide is already EPA approved and used according to label requirements, which will reduce costs without weakening environmental protections.
Finally, the Improving Water Quality Certifications and American Energy Infrastructure Act codifies the historic nationwide permit process under section 404, extends permit validity to 10 years, and clarifies jurisdiction over dredge-and-fill discharges, providing predictability for infrastructure and energy developers.
Together, the enactment of all these bills will result in clear rules and predictable timelines that will cut costs and promote economic growth while maintaining environmental protections. That is how you battle inflation.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Congressional Record a list of over 180 conservation, recreation, hunting, fishing, environmental, Tribal, and State organizations that oppose the PERMIT Act.
189 Organizations Opposed to Provisions in H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act
Mr. Chair, we must think carefully before we act today about what will be lost when the PERMIT Act is signed into law. As I stated throughout our proceedings today, I agree, we need permitting reform, but this bill is not it.
We can come back to the table and come up with solutions that will do both: enhance the speed, clarity, and efficacy with which we issue permits in the United States of America without polluting our water.
We have to think about the 50 percent of wetlands that have been lost, the over 70 percent of rivers and streams that are losing their protections and could join that 50 percent in being lost forever.
As an avid outdoorswoman who loves to hunt and fish--our entire family is four-season anglers throughout the great State of Michigan--I urge my colleagues to think carefully about what we will be losing.
We can come together and advocate for meaningful permitting reform. We need staff to administer permits. The current administration cannot gut Federal agencies on one hand and claim to want speedy Federal processes on the other.
The Army Corps' three senior-most experts have left the agency, as well as an additional 15 to 30 percent of the regulatory staff. This has impacted west Michigan in particular, as we have seen firsthand additional delays under this administration in permitting from the Army Corps.
The PERMIT Act simply directs the Corps and EPA to rewrite Federal rules, again stoking even more uncertainty. My Democratic colleagues and I agree that we need to issue permits more expeditiously in this country. We can do that while not giving up access to clean water.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, H.R. 3898 is critical to achieving more efficient, predictable, and useful permitting for many important projects by streamlining and improving the Clean Water Act's permitting process.
As has been stated, H.R. 3898 will support everyday Americans in every district across this Nation by making commonsense reforms to the Clean Water Act, unleashing America's ability to increase transparency in the development of water quality standards.
It also directs the Corps to eliminate the backlog of outstanding section 404 permit applications and jurisdictional determinations, eliminates duplicative, unnecessary permitting processes for areas such as pesticide in aerial fire retardant use, and so much more.
The bottom line is, we cannot effectively build roads, bridges, pipelines, ports, dams, levies, airports, homes, farms, and many, many other important infrastructure projects.
This bill is a product of hard work by many members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In particular, I thank Representatives Rick Crawford, David Rouzer, Doug LaMalfa, Pete Stauber, Dusty Johnson, Burgess Owens, Eric Burlison, Jeff Hurd, Jefferson Shreve, Dave Taylor, and Jimmy Patronis, who all contributed provisions to this bill.
I especially thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mike Collins, for working with me on this. He has shown extraordinary leadership in developing this very important issue. I do thank the gentlewoman from Michigan for her friendship in this process, and I would urge support for the bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill, as amended, shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, printed in the bill, is adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part A of House Report 119-399. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, ``If you build it, he will come.'' ``If you build it, he will come.'' Those are the words Kevin Costner's character famously heard, a mysterious voice encouraging him to construct the most famous baseball field in America, the ``Field of Dreams.''
Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, that only happens in the movies. Because for the last 2 years, if anyone in the free State of Florida tries to build anything, only the Washington bureaucracy will come. However, this wasn't always the case.
In 2020, Florida became the third State, joining Michigan and New Jersey, to implement and run a Clean Water Act section 404 Permitting program.
These State-run programs reduce duplicative requirements, reduce costs, and expedite permit approval times exactly as Congress intended.
Throughout the State-administered review process, Federal agencies maintained robust oversight to ensure Florida's 404 permitting program complied with all Federal requirements, while the EPA maintained strict control over Florida's decisions.
However, Florida's successful permitting program, along with Michigan and New Jersey, has been thrown into limbo by litigation stripping Florida of its ability to run its program. The court's decision, which is contrary to the position of both the Trump and Biden administrations, has shifted permitting authority back to the Federal Government, creating enormous disruptions to Florida's efforts to protect wetlands and water resources and is now blocking Florida's ability to issue necessary permits for development projects across the State, including: projects to restore Florida's Everglades; projects to build or improve sidewalks, bridges, utilities, roads, and highways; solar energy projects; and other projects that impact grid reliability.
The ability for States to take the lead in regulating their natural resources is vital, particularly in a State like Florida where growing our economy is contingent on protecting the environment.
Mr. Chair, that is why the Bean amendment seeks to codify the permitting program administered by the States of Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey, and to provide certainty to the other States lined up to do the same.
These States have been examples of cooperation between the State and Federal Government, and now Congress must provide clarity and confidence for any additional State interested in joining these three.
We need this amendment because protecting the environment in Florida is protecting our field of dreams.
Mr. Chair, despite our friendship, I do oppose Mr. Bean's amendment, yet support the programs that have been implemented in Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey, and we want them to continue.
However, Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to legislatively mandate approval of a program, without changes, that was adopted without the proper and necessary oversight and review.
The Clean Water Act was specifically enacted as a Federal-State partnership.
The Environmental Protection Agency has approved 47 States to implement the point source discharge program under section 402 of the Clean Water Act, and having States as coregulators makes comprehensive implementation of this program possible.
However, far fewer States have sought approval to regulate the discharge of dredge-and-fill materials under section 404 of the act, again with only New Jersey and my home State of Michigan currently approved to implement this authority.
We do hope Florida will go back to the administration and seek approval, once again, but this amendment relates to Florida's attempts to receive approval of its own section 404 program without the proper process.
In 2024, a Federal district court struck down the approval of Florida's 404 permit authority on the grounds that both the State and Federal agencies failed to follow the rules in approving the State's program.
I am not opposed to the State of Florida or any State seeking to manage 404 authorities within its borders. In fact, I have been a huge champion of this program.
The State of Florida can pursue implementing a 404 program but through the proper approval process through the administration. Congress should not mandate a program that has been deemed deficient by the courts.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I remind the gentlewoman from Michigan that Michigan is such a beautiful State. It has got one of the longest freshwater coastlines of any State. That may be a trivia fact, but no one is going to fight harder for Michigan's environment than the people of Michigan. This amendment gives them that authority back, and so I would ask her to reconsider her opposition.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters: One from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in support of the Bean amendment and, also, a letter from the National Association of Home Builders also detailing how passage of the Bean amendment and underlying bill will lead to the creation of more attainable housing.
Mr. Chair, this has been a model. This program works. The Reagan administration approved Michigan's program. The Clinton administration approved New Jersey's program. Then Florida's program was approved by the Trump administration and then defended by the Biden administration. This is something we should agree on, bipartisan support to help protect the environment.
Mr. Chair, it is Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey, but here are the States that are in line, that say we
As I wrap up, I thank Chairman Graves for his leadership, as well as Congressman Collins and Congressman Rouzer. They have all said we need to step up. Our environment is worth fighting for, and that is what the Bean amendment does. I ask for your support.
Mr. Chair, pipelines and energy infrastructure are the backbone of American energy dominance, yet section 401 of the Clean Water Act, designed to protect our water quality, has too often become a roadblock for critical projects.
Too many States are using this authority to block interstate natural gas pipelines, transmission lines, and other federally approved projects for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with water quality. These projects are routinely certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as being in the national interest, yet they are never built because a single State can withhold or delay a 401 certification.
We have all seen the consequences: delays that stretch on for years, procedural roadblocks that force applicants to withdraw and to resubmit just to restart the process, and legal hurdles so steep that a single denial can derail an entire multistate project or kill it altogether.
Meanwhile, these very same States continue benefiting from the affordable, reliable energy produced in other parts of the country, even as they obstruct the pipelines needed for our Nation's development, economic security, and long-term competitiveness.
This amendment tackles that problem head-on. It establishes expedited judicial review for major energy infrastructure projects, ensuring that the courts reach timely decisions.
It also limits standing to the applicant or those who face direct or irreparable harm, preventing activist groups from weaponizing the process to stall projects that are essential to our power grid, economy, and, most importantly, national security.
Mr. Chair, we cannot meet growing energy demand, power our data centers, or lead the world in AI without the infrastructure to move American energy. It is impossible. This amendment is a targeted, responsible solution, and a crucial step toward restoring America's energy dominance.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.
This amendment doubles down on two of the bad ideas in the base of the text of the PERMIT Act: limiting a State's right to protect its own water resources and limiting legitimate civil action on harmful permits.
This amendment limits lawsuits to within 30 days of a Clean Water Act section 401 certification, with the very high bar of imminent, irreparable economic harm. Not only is this hard to prove, but impacts can come in many forms beyond basic economic impacts.
Further, if the court doesn't act within the amendment's arbitrary shot clock, the suit is automatically denied with prejudice, meaning that the suit can't be brought again, through no fault of the harmed party.
Finally, this amendment requiring any suit to be filed within 30 days also applies to the operation of whatever the license or permit is for. As we know, many infrastructure projects are designed to be in service for 100 years. Who knows what impacts might come 50 or 75 years down the road or what changes will occur if the company stops maintaining a facility in the future. This provision is dangerous and a shortsighted assault on the ability to maintain clean water.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman and understand her opposition, but her reasons for opposing this amendment are the very reasons that we need this amendment.
We have a situation that has been weaponized, that has held up and killed many good projects that would lead to our energy independence and to those very States that she is talking about.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, the PERMIT Act is the bill you offer when you don't want to protect clean water. It is a very sad and extreme bill. With respect to my good friend, Chairman Babin, this amendment only makes it worse.
In 2023, the Supreme Court gutted clean water protections that we have relied on since the 1980s, and now, the Trump administration is trying to make it the law that Americans don't deserve clean water.
Already today, clean water protections have been defanged, leaving up to 80 percent of our streams and 50 percent of our wetlands at risk of pollution or destruction, but my House Republican friends have offered this bill that further rolls back the remaining protections on clean water.
Mr. Chair, there are a couple of articles this week that highlight why this is so important. In Louisville, Kentucky, their water facility recently investigated why they had a spike in PFAS, so-called forever chemicals, and found out that a superconductor plant, Chemours, had dumped a PFAS called GenX into the water. This is a company that knowingly violated the allowable dumping limits several times.
The only way that folks knew that they were able to address this was when they found out that Chemours had been violating its Clean Water Act permit.
Louisville citizens have not only had to pay for upgrades to make up for their company's violations, but now they face serious health risks. This bill is only going to increase the burdens on Louisville taxpayers and everyone who is downstream on the river.
The second article today is from The Washington Post. Mothers whose drinking water was downstream of sites contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, both of which are considered likely carcinogens, were much more likely to lose their babies and more likely to have a preterm or low-weight birth.
Pollution has impacts, and we are just beginning to learn about the impacts of PFAS in our water.
The Trump administration said that they want to make America healthy again, a wonderful goal and a good idea, but this bill does exactly the opposite. Please, let's kill the bill and kill the amendment. It is dangerous to us all.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Babin.
Let's be very clear about this. This amendment builds directly on the critical Clean Water Act section 401 certification reforms that I authored in the underlying bill. These are reforms that refocus the 401 certification process on its original and proper purpose, and that is: protecting water quality.
Unfortunately, in recent years, certain States have abused this process, using it as a tool to block or indefinitely delay infrastructure projects for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with water quality.
Mr. Babin's amendment strengthens judicial review for 401 certifications on major energy infrastructure projects by curbing frivolous lawsuits and, two, ensuring expedited consideration when legitimate challenges are brought.
Mr. Chair, that is all there is to it. It is very simple and straightforward. It is actually exceptionally pro-environment, and I support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reiterate exactly what we said in my opening statement and what Mr. Rouzer has stated. Many times, the opposition has nothing to do with clean water whatsoever. It has been weaponized. We need to expedite this, as Mr. Rouzer, my friend, said.
Mr. Chair, this is extremely good for the environment, and I would still urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment doubles down on two of the bad ideas in the base text of the PERMIT Act: limiting a State's right to protect its own water resources and limiting legitimate civil actions on harmful permits. I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. Chair, this particular amendment is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It deals with ranching lands that have been used for more than 40 years. It gives the ranchers the flexibility they need without Washington bureaucrats second-guessing their operations.
In Arizona and, in fact, the entire Western United States, drought cycles can last decades. In fact, Arizona and much of the West have been in a 30-year drought. Under the current 5-year window, pauses that ranchers and farmers might take can often revert to wetlands, triggering EPA oversight that locks out grazing.
My amendment recognizes the reality of the West and protects these parcels so they can return to production when conditions improve without fear of Federal reclamation. During the Biden administration, expansive WOTUS interpretations treated dry washes and ephemeral streams as navigable waters, piling on permits that crippled ranchers and farmers in the West.
Without grazing, it triggers something more devastating in some respects, which is wildfires. We have had a bit of a wet year. We have grasslands in part of the West now that are 2 feet in height. When the summer comes and the heat comes and they dry up, this will trigger massive wildfires.
Ranchers in my own district have spent hundreds of thousands, even millions, on compliance costs, environmental assessments, and legal fees just to access lands they have stewarded for generations and, in some case, almost 100 years.
This overreach hurts family ranchers and contributes to a shrinking U.S. cattle herd, now at its lowest level since the 1950s, driving beef prices up more than 14 percent in the last year. By opening more land and cutting red tape, this amendment empowers ranchers to expand grazing, manage habitat, control wildfires, and meet market needs.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, the gentleman's amendment would change the abandonment threshold for certain agricultural lands that had historically been wetlands.
Under the 1985 Swampbuster Act, farmers are discouraged from converting wetlands to farmland by making farmers ineligible for Federal farm program benefits if they drain, dredge, or fill wetlands for agricultural production after 1985.
However, since 1985, the Clean Water Act has recognized that certain prior converted cropland would not be subject to the Clean Water Act permitting if those agricultural lands remain in production and are not abandoned for more than 5 years.
This 5-year abandonment threshold has been in place for over 40 years and has balanced the need for certainty for farmers with the reality that some of these areas might revert back to critically important wetlands if abandoned by the farmer.
The gentleman's amendment would upend this established practice and create more uncertainty on whether a renewed wetland is or is not subject to Federal protections.
In light of the ongoing assault on Federal wetland protections undertaken by the Supreme Court, the Trump administration, and this bill, I do not support adding more uncertainty to the protection of critical waters and wetlands.
Mr. Chair, what I would suggest is that folks come out West and take a look at the land. Take a look at land that has been determined to be wetlands, dry washes, and ephemeral streams. Then ask the question: Why is that a wetland?
When we get great rains, what, once every 3 years, that wash gets filled. When we do not allow grazing, what happens is there is time for wildfires. The habitat is endangered, and things aren't better; they are worse. This amendment helps cure that.
My colleagues across the aisle are saying: We don't care if they have to let it lie fallow. We don't care what the reality is in the West. All we care about is protecting the bureaucratic rule.
Mr. Chair, that is a doggone shame because beef production is incredibly low right now. Beef consumption is projected to be 28.6 billion pounds this year. It is falling because of high prices.
What are we doing? We are saying we are going to import it from Argentina. When a county in my State normally has 60,000 head, and over the last 10 years that has gone down to 25,000 head, that is because of this rule that needs to be changed.
Mr. Chair, I urge passage of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I want to give context to folks about the West, but, particularly, my own home State. In my State, which is the sixth largest geographically in the Nation, only 18 percent of the land is privately owned. All of the rest, 82 percent, is controlled by a government entity, State, Federal, or reservation.
My amendment is common sense and targeted. It directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to review lands under their jurisdiction within 1 year and identify parcels suitable for water recharge projects like aquifer recharge and surface infiltration.
That is a very limited scope of the federally controlled land in Arizona. It streamlines permitting under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and it minimizes red tape through categorical exclusions in collaboration with State agencies.
This ensures Federal lands become partners in water management, not barriers, allowing Arizona communities to secure the water they need.
In Arizona, water is life, yet over 95 percent of rainfall evaporates before it can even recharge aquifers. Even a small increase in recharge could substantially boost underground water supplies in Arizona.
Drought cycles and Federal restrictions have idled vast areas and threatened water security. My amendment promotes recharge efforts on Federal lands, giving States the tools to capture and store water before it is lost.
Mr. Chair, I want you to know, in the 18 percent of land, we lead the world in recharge. We lead the world in recharge, and when you can recharge underground aquifers, Mr. Chair, you save lives and you promote good environmental quality. Under the Biden administration, routine water projects became regulatory nightmares with EPA restrictions untailored to Arizona's desert reality.
Securing permits often means chaotic delays from Federal bureaucracies, even to access water on lands the Federal Government controls, which is over 80 percent of Arizona. With only 18 percent of Arizona privately owned, streamlined Federal permitting is essential.
My amendment delivers by identifying hydrologically suitable Federal land and cutting bureaucracy.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be more appropriate in a bipartisan Water Resources Development Act instead of a toxic, partisan assault on the Clean Water Act.
Addressing the water supply needs of communities ought to be something we all agree on.
While the gentleman's amendment would seek to address water supply needs through aquifer recharge projects conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, it is being offered to a bill that will roll back clean water protections and increase costs for vulnerable communities.
I urge the gentleman and other supporters of this amendment to engage with the bipartisan collaborative Water Resources Development Act process to move their proposal forward. We would love to talk to him about it.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment in this context, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment empowers local entities to expand recharge efforts keeping aquifers full and communities strong in Arizona and the West. Arizona's rural economy depends on agriculture and ranching. We cannot allow water shortages to slow growth or drive up food costs nationwide.
By investing in groundwater and stormwater recharge, this amendment increases supplies, lowers costs for farmers, and strengthens the domestic food chain. It removes red tape so Arizona can secure water for future generations.
Identifying Federal lands for recharge is simple, it is necessary, and it is appropriate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We invite this amendment in a separate Water Resources Development Act process.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not be offered.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is so great, you are not even going to believe it.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act, that offers a solution to compensatory mitigation.
A lack of wetland mitigation credits is holding back residential housing construction, and the available credits are increasingly expensive.
These costs are passed down to the consumer, exacerbating the already unaffordable housing market that the U.S. is facing.
Unpredictable and lengthy permitting timelines for mitigation banks are making it more challenging to bring new credits to the market. Moreover, the requirement to purchase mitigation credits located within the same hydraulic unit code--geographic area determined by surface hydraulic features--can mean that credits available at a nearby wetland bank cannot be used if they are too far away.
Without available credits, a builder's second option is in-lieu fee programs; however, not all States offer this option, or builders can use a permittee-responsible mitigation. Still, most builders are not equipped to carry this out. Both options are expensive and burdensome.
My amendment fixes this issue by increasing the supply of mitigation bank credits, driving down the cost curve, and lowering home prices both through directly lowering the regulatory cost of building a new home and allowing builders to use lots that the cost of mitigation today prevents them from using.
Additionally, my amendment directs the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA to publish a revised compensatory mitigation rule that incorporates advances in science and lessons learned since 2007; promotes equivalency and flexibility among mitigation options, providing builders additional options beyond mitigation bank credits; speeds the approval of mitigation banks, including through the interagency review process, which provides numerous duplicative opportunities for the Army Corps offices to raise the same concerns; allows for mitigation credits to be used across multiple hydraulic unit codes; and allows for out-of- kind mitigation where appropriate.
Together, these changes will increase the availability of credits and provide alternatives to ensure that a lack of credits doesn't hamstring new developments.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 3898, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, as I have said throughout the proceedings today, I agree with Mr. Crawford that we have an outdated and overly cumbersome permitting process right now that is in dire need of reform. It is increasing costs. However, the PERMIT Act and Mr. Crawford's amendment do nothing to address that. In fact, they add to the confusion and the burden.
I oppose the continued weakening of Federal protections over our wetlands and streams, as well, and I oppose this amendment because it further weakens any remaining Federal protections to address impacts to these critical water bodies.
There has been an ongoing assault on Federal wetlands protections undertaken by the Supreme Court, the Trump administration, and this bill.
As a result of the Sackett decision, historic Federal protections were lost on over 50 percent of our wetlands and up to 70 percent of our rivers and streams. As a four-season angler, I can tell you I take this personally.
Now, the Trump administration is undertaking a rule to further erode Federal protections on wetlands and streams well beyond and potentially in contravention to the Sackett decision.
The PERMIT Act doubles down on these weakenings of Federal protections and goes well beyond Sackett and is wholly inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the Clean Water Act.
The Crawford amendment, while potentially well-intentioned, by focusing on mitigation of wetlands impacts, misses the mark by letting inferior mitigation proposals be deemed sufficient. This includes mitigation proposals in different watersheds than impacts, mitigation options that do not address lost wetland functions, or removing mitigation requirements for so-called temporary impacts to wetlands.
We all remember deadly flash floods overwhelming local communities this summer, a story that, unfortunately, will continue to unfold in more and more communities across the country as extreme weather events explode.
A root cause of those flash floods is the slow removal of the critical benefits that wetlands play in upstream communities.
I oppose the continued weakening of these Federal protections because of the harm that they cause to these critical wetlands.
Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to recognize that my friends on the other side of the aisle do recognize that we have a real big problem with compliance burdens and the costs associated with that, and how that prevents Americans from realizing the American Dream of homeownership. As they raise the point of affordability, they neglect the fact that we can address affordability by reducing costs to potential homeowners.
At least we can agree that we have a cumbersome regulatory framework that needs to be fixed. This helps fix and is actually a proactive step in addressing the affordability crisis. One of those things has to do with homeownership, and by adopting this amendment, we are increasing the likelihood that an American can actually build a home and realize the American Dream.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The housing crisis is felt acutely in west Michigan. I have supported numerous bipartisan solutions to help get more affordable homes on the market, and permitting reform is a critical component of that.
As I have said, however, this amendment, as well as the PERMIT Act itself, does nothing to address it. Soon, homeowners won't be able to afford whatever home they are able to purchase and build because of the rising costs of flood insurance or the floods that will devastate those new homes.
At a time when costs are rising and flooding becomes more frequent, destroying just 1 acre of wetland will increase costs by $8,000 in additional payouts by American taxpayers through the National Flood Insurance Program.
We can come to meaningful permitting reforms together by increasing the staff that we have to administer permits and cutting red tape that is truly hindering these permits from getting executed expeditiously. I mentioned previously that the Army Corps lost its three senior-most experts, as well as an additional 15 to 30 percent of its regulatory staff. The confusion at the agency caused by this administration is adding to the increase in rising costs to the American people.
Mr. Chair, I have heard this mentioned more than once today, and that is that we need to increase the number of personnel to process, manage, and administer the regulatory burdens that Americans are facing. Let me say that again. The Democrats say we need to increase personnel because the regulatory burden is so cumbersome that it takes additional personnel to be able to administer it. That seems counterintuitive to regulatory relief.
Mr. Chair, I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Adding additional staff is just one component of the overall permitting reform process that we hope to engage in in a meaningful bipartisan way because we know that there are bipartisan solutions on the table.
In the past few years, we have seen the Supreme Court, the Trump administration, and the Republican Congress chip away at the historic Clean Water Act.
Under the Supreme Court's misreading of this critical law, decades- old protections have been slashed for over half of our wetlands and up to 70 percent of our streams, resulting in almost 90 percent of our wetlands and streams losing protection. This amendment only worsens those protections.
I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to begin by thanking Representative Collins for his leadership on the PERMIT Act and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their joint work in a bipartisan way on many of these issues in this bill, as well.
I rise in support today of an amendment to the PERMIT Act that would establish a new State-led water quality pilot program through the Environmental Protection Agency.
This amendment is straightforward, and like my home State in Iowa, it is something that can help in our rural communities. It supports States across the country in working to address water quality challenges using voluntary, science-backed conservation practices that our landowners and local partners are already engaged in implementing.
This issue hits particularly close to home for me. In the Hawkeye State, we have seen some of the highest nitrate levels ever recorded in our rivers and streams across Iowa. This year alone, the Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers exceeded Federal nitrate limits multiple times, requiring expensive water treatment to provide safe drinking water for more than 600,000 Iowans.
More than 600 water segments across Iowa are now listed as impaired, with just over 60 percent of our nutrient-impaired watersheds remaining on the 303(d) list.
Iowans worked hard, as have many States, to address this issue, but the scale of the challenge demands better coordination and support from our Federal Government.
My amendment would create a new pilot program to strengthen the State and Federal collaboration in areas with nitrogen and phosphorus impairments, exactly what Iowa is struggling with. It would bring the Environmental Protection Agency to the table with States to help advance water quality improvements more efficiently and ensure that our existing tools and conservation programs work together as effectively as possible in a hybrid model.
This pilot is fully voluntary and keeps the Federal Government in its proper lane. It does not impose any new obligations on a producer or private landowner. What it does do is it helps best practices already being implemented in places like Iowa and many other States that are working to
This amendment will help ensure that projects designed to improve water quality can move forward smoothly and with support, particularly in those areas with watersheds.
This approach is the type of State-led partnership that focuses on solutions the PERMIT Act is intended to help support. It accelerates the forward progress of water quality projects. It strengthens State leadership on this issue. It gets buy-in from communities. It promotes voluntary conservation work that everyone agrees is the best way to help our family farms, local communities, rural hometowns, and, most importantly, water quality across this country.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment as we move forward with the PERMIT Act.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is redundant. There are existing programs at the EPA that cover both nitrogen and phosphorus pollution control and mitigation for their impacts on impaired waters.
Perhaps worse, this new program does not come with dedicated appropriations, which means that if stood up, this program would have to pull resources away from well-established EPA efforts to support water quality improvements in communities. It is expensive, and it does nothing.
This amendment is window dressing for this bad bill. Instead, we should be working together on bipartisan efforts to support clean water and improve water quality.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the feedback from my colleague on the other side of the aisle, I will remind the gentlewoman from Michigan that not every good answer comes out of Washington, D.C. In fact, many of them are best practice right in our family hometowns. In a State like Iowa and in Des Moines, who helped lead in water quality--and we want to do more--the lag time, the bureaucracy, the delay, and the permitting coming out of Washington has made it only harder.
This is a voluntary opportunity to create a pilot program that can create a new idea, make a good recommendation, capture a best practice, and help to instill it in a way that improves water quality not only at source, but downstream for every State, as well.
While I support what the EPA is trying to do at the Federal level, I think we all recognize that the EPA alone can't solve this. They need help from great leaders on the ground.
Let's empower locals to have the opportunity to also be part of the solution and not turn to, as you have noted several times, a long, delayed permitting process in Washington to be a final solution for every challenge that America faces.
Mr. Chairman, I am a huge supporter of Federal-State partnerships when it comes to protecting our waters and believe that localities and our States need to play a bigger role. However, this particular amendment is already in place. Without direct appropriations, we are tasking the Federal Government with creating even more programs that they don't have the resources to fulfill. It is costly and redundant, and that is why I am opposed.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, this amendment is about helping States succeed to improve their water quality--not creating a new mandate and not creating a new bureaucracy. It gives States the support that they need to do the things that currently aren't being executed under current law.
This is a good, project-focused effort to help innovators at the source. It is smart. It is targeted solutions. It supports a cleaner water for our country. It is strong State leadership. It is better outcomes for communities. It is locally driven, not federally mandated.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3898 and my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, too much nitrogen and phosphorus in the water accelerates the growth of harmful levels of algae and bacteria. We see it firsthand in the Great Lakes every single year with the formation of algal blooms that are devastating to our Great Lakes, rivers, and streams. Significant increases in algae harm water quality, food resources, and habitats, and they decrease the oxygen that fish and other aquatic life need to survive.
The Clean Water Act has several regulatory and nonregulatory programs aimed at addressing nutrients, many of which suffer from the lack of Federal funding to truly make a difference. Adding a redundant program without funding doesn't help us roll back red tape and streamline permitting. It only adds to the problem.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment includes the language from my bill, H.R. 1948, allowing the International Boundary and Water Commission, or IBWC, to accept up to $5 million per year from other Federal agencies or outside entities, such as cities, States, and nonprofit organizations, for wastewater treatment and flood-control projects like those that would fight the cross-border sewage crisis in San Diego.
The IBWC has jurisdiction over the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant in San Diego, where longstanding operational and maintenance failures have allowed raw sewage to flow from the Tijuana River into San Diego's beaches. This has created a public health crisis that strains local resources, poses significant environmental risks, and forces our servicemembers to train in polluted sewage water.
Under current law, Federal agencies, State governments, and local entities cannot transfer funds to projects under IBWC's jurisdiction. This leaves IBWC reliant on annual appropriations or emergency funding to build and maintain its facilities.
My office, along with the rest of the San Diego delegation, has secured $360 million in emergency funding to help address chronic issues at the South Bay treatment plant. I thank all of the people in this Chamber who have supported that, including a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are veteran Navy SEALs and have been very concerned about this issue.
This amendment would provide another tool to ensure San Diego does not need to move from emergency to emergency to secure adequate funding for the plant. If we can get money from other sources, there is no reason not to accept it. For some reason, current law prevents us from accepting even a donation from a nonprofit that would want to help us with the issue.
Mr. Chair, I say let's get out of the way. H.R. 1948 passed out of the House on suspension in June of this year, and I hope to see it become law on any topical legislative vehicle before us. In this case, our amendment would authorize additional funding sources to further expedite the completion of clean water projects that fall under IBWC's jurisdiction. I think it makes sense and is good for everyone.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the support of my colleagues, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, although I claim time in the opposition, I do not oppose the amendment. I rise, in fact, in support of the amendment No. 8 offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Peters), as it would allow the United States section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, or IBWC as they call it, to receive additional funding from other Federal and non-Federal partners to support water and wastewater infrastructure.
This amendment will give the IBWC access to additional funding sources, enabling it to properly maintain these assets and, in turn, support cleaner training waters for our warfighters while strengthening security along our southern border.
This amendment is the same text as H.R. 1948, which was favorably reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and passed the House by voice vote earlier this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), and the committee. I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, this is a good amendment. I urge adoption of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Rouzer) having assumed the chair, Mr. DesJarlais, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3898) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make targeted reforms with respect to waters of the United States and other matters, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 936, he reported the bill, as amended pursuant to that resolution, back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The Chair will put the amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 3898 is postponed.
State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (H.R. 3628) to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to add a standard related to State consideration of reliable generation, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, nays 207, not voting 8, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (H.R. 3638) to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to add a standard related to State consideration of reliable generation, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 267, nays 159, not voting 7, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost) (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. Stanton changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 936 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3383.
Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran) kindly take the chair.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3383) to amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 with respect to the authority of closed-end companies to invest in private funds, with Mr. Moran (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, amendment No. 5, printed in part B of House Report 119-399, offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) had been postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 119-399 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Self of Texas.
Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Waters of California.
Amendment No. 5 by Ms. Waters of California.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1, printed in part B of House Report 119-399, offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 54, noes 374, not voting 11, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted NO on Roll Call No. 325.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 3, printed in part B of House Report 119-399, offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211, noes 219, not voting 8, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 5, printed in part B of House Report 119-399, offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, noes 215, not voting 9, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Moran) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bost, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3383) to amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 with respect to the authority of closed-end companies to invest in private funds, and, pursuant to House Resolution 936, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3898) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make targeted reforms with respect to waters of the United States and other matters, and for other purposes, will now resume.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5- minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210, nays 216, not voting 7, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2550, Protect America's Workforce Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 432) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2550) to nullify the Executive Order relating to Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, nays 194, not voting 7, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There are 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. COLE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 322, NAY on Roll Call No. 323, YEA on Roll Call No. 324, NO on Roll Call No. 325, AYE on Roll Call No. 326, AYE on Roll Call No. 327, AYE on Roll Call No. 328, YEA on Roll Call No. 329, NAY on Roll Call No. 330, and YEA on Roll Call No. 331.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 432, the House will proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2550, which the clerk will report by title.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 432, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia) will each control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2550. Americans pay several hundred billion dollars in taxes each year to fund the salaries and benefits of more than 2 million Federal civilian employees. These workers are paid to carry out the critical mission and functions of the Federal Government, but the more than 340 million Americans who foot the bill do not directly manage Federal executive branch employees. They elect a President to do that.
The President directs the workforce of the executive branch so he can fulfill his constitutional duty to ensure the laws of the land are faithfully executed.
When President Trump ran for office last year, he told the American public that if--if elected, he would return Federal employees to their offices, reform the bureaucracy, and restore much-needed accountability to the workforce. The American people chose to elect him to do just that.
Even before President Trump took office, Federal collective bargaining legal authorities were weaponized to sabotage what Americans had voted for. On their way out the door, lameduck Biden administration officials signed collective bargaining agreements with Federal employee union bosses specifically designed to tie the hands of incoming President Trump.
In January, at our very first hearing this Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform heard testimony from President Biden's Social Security Commissioner, Martin O'Malley. He cut a deal with union bosses after the November election and just before leaving the agency to run for chair of the Democratic National Committee.
The deal locked in telework levels for tens of thousands of Social Security Administration employees for the entirety of the incoming Trump administration. To be clear, this was done specifically to Trump- proof the workforce and to force the incoming President to continue the failed management policies the public had just voted to end.
We must ask: Are we going to uphold the President's constitutional role as head of the executive branch?
Can he truly lead if he is held hostage by union deals to which he never
Should an elected President be unable to bring tax-funded Federal employees back to work for his entire 4-year term?
The American people do not think so.
That is why the House Committee on Oversight and Reform adopted legislation that would allow the President to manage the workforce without being bound by last-minute union agreements designed to undermine him. That legislation, the Preserving Presidential Management Authority Act, sponsored by Representative Cloud of Texas, is the bill we should be debating here today.
It is important to remember that public-sector unions are fundamentally different from their private-sector counterparts. In fact, none other than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a major champion of private-sector unions, believed that public-sector unions made no sense. FDR wrote: ``The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.''
Why is that? In the private sector, unions represent workers and sit across the bargaining table from representatives of businessowners. However, Federal unions are not negotiating with a profit-seeking corporation. They are negotiating with the public's elected representatives.
As FDR put it in the case of the public sector, the employer is the whole people. Federal unions, in other words, seek concessions not from private owners but from the taxpayers themselves.
Since Federal salaries and benefits are determined by laws, which also establish basic civil service protections for employees, what exactly do Federal unions bargain over? They bargain over conditions of employment like telework.
Unions also seek contract provisions that limit management's ability to hold employees accountable through disciplinary procedures or performance management processes.
I urge my colleagues to buck Federal union bosses. Put Americans first and oppose the so-called Protect America's Workforce Act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Protecting America's Workforce Act, which will restore collective bargaining rights for more than 1 million Federal workers.
I thank Congressman Golden for all his work to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor and so many Members across our caucus who are supportive.
We know this bill is a historic win which overcame opposition from Speaker Johnson and certainly antiworker allies across the government.
In March, President Trump signed an executive order terminating collective bargaining rights for Federal police officers, firefighters, nurses, food safety inspectors, and so many more.
The nurses who care for our veterans, the flight safety inspectors at the FAA, nuclear power plant safety workers, and countless others lost their right to have representation in the workplace. This is unfair, and it is wrong. Workers deserve the right to make their voices heard with a union.
Mr. Speaker, I was the mayor of my city of Long Beach, California, before I came to Congress. I am so proud to partner with our city unions, always making sure that the city and services ran effectively. Our Federal unions are the same. They make sure that our civil service is independent and nonpartisan, serving the citizens and not whichever party is currently in power.
They make sure we attract and retain highly talented workers, and they make sure our agencies follow the law.
President Trump is targeting Federal unions to further his power grab and to continue to push an agenda which leaves working families behind and, instead, supports billionaires.
Unions make our middle class stronger. They make our government stronger, and they make our economy stronger. We should be working every day to strengthen the right to organize and not to undermine it. This bill is a historic victory.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Congressman Golden and everyone who has worked on it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2550.
The proposed legislation is designed to nullify President Trump's lawful executive order to exclude agencies with national security missions from collective bargaining agreements.
Article II of the Constitution is crystal clear: The executive power is invested in the President of the United States. Let me repeat: All authority in the executive branch flows from the people to the duly elected executive. Anyone operating outside of the pleasure of the President in the executive branch is simply part of an unconstitutional fourth branch of government. The President holds the sole authority.
Yet for decades, Federal collective bargaining agreements have been allowed, and some are even designed to restrict the President's ability to lead the government we elected him to run.
That is why President Trump, acting fully within the authority granted by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, amended Jimmy Carter's 1979 executive order, to exempt additional agencies from burdensome collective bargaining agreements--agencies such as the Departments of Defense, State, Justice, Homeland Security, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as many others.
The left's disdain for the Constitution cannot be more clear. We saw this during Trump administration 1.0 with the resistance movement. During the Biden administration we saw the auto pen controversy where they even went around the executive. The Biden administration spent the final months, even after being voted out of office, frantically signing union contracts which were explicitly designed to sabotage the incoming administration and prevent President Trump, elected by the people, from carrying out the mandate he was given.
These same government unions are not neutral public servants. In the 2023 to 2024 election cycle, the four largest Federal employee unions spent nearly $1 billion on politics, with 98.8 percent of their Federal contributions going to the Democratic Party.
Unions like the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, AFSCME, SEIU, and others affected by this executive order have made no secret of their intent to resist the agenda the American people voted for.
As Congress, we need to ensure that the Constitution is upheld. We need more legislation like the Preserving Presidential Management Authority Act, which simply reaffirms Article II and ensures that no future administration can permanently handcuff its successor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defend Article II, reject this H.R. 2550, and stand with the American people who sent us here to drain the swamp, not to protect it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2550, bipartisan legislation to restore collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of unionized Federal employees.
This legislation reaffirms a core principle: A government that serves the people must also respect the rights of those who serve within it.
Federal employees work tirelessly every day, often behind the scenes. They process Social Security benefits, safeguard our food and water, care for our veterans, and respond whenever a disaster strikes. Their work is essential, and its impact reaches every community across this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, by restoring their collective bargaining rights, we strengthen a system that keeps government effective, stable, and responsive, all without compromising security or mission readiness.
Reinstating these rights is not a concession. It is a commitment, a commitment to treat federal workers with dignity, to reinforce a resilient public service, and to honor the commitment of the men and women who show up for the American people every single day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank my friend and colleague from Maine, Jared Golden, for his partnership, and, more importantly, for his courage in advancing this initiative.
This bill would nullify President Trump's Executive Order No. 14251, which rightly excluded 40 national security agencies from collective bargaining.
Agencies like FEMA, the Coast Guard, the CDC, and the VA cannot afford to be paralyzed by union red tape when lives are on the line.
I want to emphasize that this is going to nullify an executive order. It is going to attack his agenda, the America First agenda, that he was overwhelmingly elected to enact.
These unions are not neutral actors. The word ``billionaires'' was mentioned by my colleague from California. I am glad he mentioned the term ``billion,'' because that is what the partisan machine government union spent in the last election, just under $1 billion, $980 million of it going to Democrats, which explains in no small measure the rationale for the movement of this bill to negate President Trump's executive order.
In its final days, the Biden administration rushed to lock in long- term union contracts designed to tie President Trump's hands for a second term.
H.R. 2550 preserves those deals signed after President Trump was reelected but before Inauguration Day. That undermines the will of the voters and the authority of the Commander in Chief. It is legislative sabotage, and we shouldn't give in to that.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 explicitly gives the President authority to exclude agencies from collective bargaining when national security is at stake. This would undo that.
Presidents from Carter to Reagan to Trump have exercised this authority. Courts have already sided with President Trump, affirming that in matters of national security, the President enjoys ``unique responsibility.''
Arizona knows too well the cost of bureaucratic failure. The Phoenix VA scandal shows what happens when accountability is lost. Veterans died waiting for care.
We must not allow unions to dictate policy if it is going to impact national security, if it is going to affect our borders, if it is going to affect our energy, and if it is going to affect protecting Americans during pandemics.
In a State where public safety and national defense are daily realities, my State, this bill would put union bosses ahead of the American people and in front of Arizonans.
In 2024 alone, the political arm of the Democratic Party, the four largest public-sector unions, spent $900 million-plus on progressive politics, and 86 percent of it came from their member dues. They are using taxpayer-backed salaries to fund partisan activism, not to serve the American people.
H.R. 2550 strips the President of his constitutional authority, undermines national security, and rewards partisan obstruction. President Trump is trying to fulfill his duty to protect the American people. Congress should not stand in his way.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with the President, put America's security ahead of union politics, and vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2550, a bill that would restore collective bargaining rights for all Federal employees.
Earlier this year, President Trump launched one of the largest attacks on labor in the history of the United States, on the working people who voted to join a union and have a voice.
President Trump suggests that this is a problem of national security. Quite frankly, it has not been. They cited that there would be strikes. There hasn't been, and it is illegal to strike. In fact, we are looking for workers to help build our military at the very time that the President is trying to beat down those workers.
This is where the real problem is. That executive order stripped Federal workers of their collective bargaining rights.
The suggestion is that they canceled the contracts. We always deal in contracts. A collective bargaining agreement is a contract between the people and the public entity. We do it across the board each and every day.
Less than 24 hours ago, in this very room, we had a chance to immediately restore the collective bargaining rights just for the Department of Defense. They all voted ``no.'' Today, they want to vote ``yes''? A day late and a dollar short is what I am talking about. They could have voted for a fraction of the people yesterday, and it would have become law. Today, they vote for it. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.
Let me be clear. We want to work together, both sides of the aisle. This is incredibly important. We need to remember that collective bargaining agreements are about a vote by the people. Don't steal the vote.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time on this important issue.
I strongly oppose this bill because it would jeopardize our national security, and it locks in harmful last-minute agreements from the Biden administration.
Union bosses love this bill for one reason: It protects their telework perk. It also shields them from accountability and gives them effective veto power over a duly elected President with a mandate to clean up a bloated Federal bureaucracy.
Specifically, this legislation would nullify President Trump's executive order titled ``Exclusions From Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs.'' The executive order wisely designated various agencies as having a national security focus as their primary functions and exempts them from collective bargaining.
Union officials do not and should not have the right to use their collective bargaining power to undermine President Trump and jeopardize our national security.
One example of this just fairly recently is ICE not being able to modify cybersecurity policies without giving its union bosses an opportunity to negotiate, delaying needed cybersecurity updates.
In another example, union bosses threatened to block the Office of Personnel Management from implementing basic IT security controls.
There is a troubling pattern where union bosses block measures that they don't like, forgetting that they work for the American people and not the other way around.
The President's executive order also improves care for veterans. On August 6, 2025, the VA announced that it is terminating most union contracts to comply with the executive order.
Employees at the VA currently spend 750,000 hours engaging not in care for veterans but in union activities. That is every single year. The President's executive order will lead VA employees to spend more time helping veterans and less time in union activities.
It goes even further. This bill forbids the Trump administration from unwinding any collective bargaining agreement signed before March 26, 2025.
After Democrats lost the 2024 elections, the Biden administration hurried to ink multiyear deals that they knew they would never have to enforce, deliberately tying the hands of their successors and rewarding union leadership on their way out.
One example is especially egregious: the Social Security Administration deal that allows maximum telework, prohibits management from reducing it, and applies to 98.5 percent of the agency's workforce.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Protect America's Workforce Act is nothing short of an attempt to prevent President Trump from reforming the Federal bureaucracy. It undermines national security and rewards union bosses who think that they run the government. I urge opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I thank, of course, the distinguished gentleman from the great State of California, Representative Garcia, for his leadership, and, of course, I thank Representative Golden for his leadership in pushing this legislation forward.
I rise today in strong support of the Protect America's Workforce Act, legislation that will restore the collective bargaining rights of more than a million hardworking Federal employees, patriotic public servants who have been targeted viciously by the Trump administration from the very beginning of his time in office unnecessarily and in ways that undermine some of the core promises, Mr. Speaker, that Donald Trump made to the American people last year.
Donald Trump and Republicans promised that they would focus on lowering costs on day one. Costs have not gone down in the United States of America. Costs have gone up. Inflation is on the way up. Housing costs are out of control. Childcare costs are out of control. Electricity bills are out of control. Grocery costs are out of control. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing out of control because of the Republican refusal to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Instead of Donald Trump and Republicans, Mr. Speaker, keeping their core promise to the American people to make their life better, they have been focusing on a variety of other things that relate simply to jamming their extreme rightwing ideology down the throats of the American people, including by targeting organized labor, hardworking men and women, including those who are part of the Federal workforce.
What is it that Federal employees do each and every day to make sure that they are providing services to the American people? The list is too numerous to mention, but we know that hardworking Federal employees, our public servants, each and every day are working hard to make sure that hard-earned Social Security benefits are delivered to the American people, that Medicare benefits are delivered to the American people, that the food we eat is disease-free, that we can enjoy our national parks all across the country, and that aviation safety and the ability to get from your point of departure to your point of destination, flying in airplanes in order to see your loved ones, is safe.
Of course, our hardworking Federal employees are working hard to make sure that veterans receive their earned benefits. Instead of being targeted by Donald Trump and Republicans, these people should be supported for the work that they do on behalf of the American people.
We also know that when it comes to improving the quality of life of everyday Americans, there is a lot of repair work that must occur to restore the American Dream that is disappearing from folks all across this country.
The American people know that the Trump administration and Republican policies have been a disaster.
In this great country, as Democrats, we believe that when you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to live an affordable life, a comfortable life, and live the good life.
What exactly does that mean: good-paying job; good housing; good healthcare; good education for your children; and at the end of the day, a good retirement. That is the good life. That is the American Dream.
For far too many people, it is out of reach, but we know that perhaps no force has been more proactive in delivering access to that American Dream than the men and women of organized labor, decade after decade after decade.
Why would Donald Trump and Republicans focus, Mr. Speaker, on targeting hardworking public employees, targeting unions, and targeting the men and women of organized labor?
Is it because my Republican colleagues are too consumed with enacting massive tax breaks for their billionaire donors, which is what the one big, ugly bill was all about, but have zero interest in lifting up the quality of life of hardworking American taxpayers, including, but not limited to, the men and women of our Federal workforce?
It was my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues believe in freedom. Well, collective bargaining, essentially, is the freedom to negotiate the best possible work environment to allow these public employees to continue to deliver services that are effective and efficient for the American people.
Yet, instead of focusing on driving down the high cost of living in America, which is out of control--yes, there is an affordability crisis in the United States of America, notwithstanding the fact, Mr. Speaker, that Donald Trump apparently believes it is a hoax. The American people know it is not a hoax.
Instead of focusing on trying to find commonsense solutions to make life better for the American people, Donald Trump and my Republican colleagues continue to just jam their extreme ideology down the throats of the American people while working overtime to benefit their billionaire donors.
That is why I am thankful for this bipartisan effort to restore collective bargaining rights for more than 1 million public servants who are part of the Federal Government, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Do the right thing by the Federal workforce. Do the right thing by the men and women of organized labor and do the right thing when it comes to ensuring that everyone has a path to experiencing the American Dream.
Mr. Speaker, that was a long minute for the leader of the Democratic Party to advocate for more work-from-home policies for our Federal employees.
I think the American people have spoken loud and clear. They support our Federal employees, like the Republican Party, but we expect them to show up for work, not get paid to be home and not be accessible by phone or by computer or by email.
That is what we heard from the leader of the Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2550.
This bipartisan bill reverses an illegal executive order that stripped collective bargaining rights from roughly 67 percent of the Federal workforce, so more than two-thirds of the Federal workforce.
Removing their limited bargaining rights does not improve efficiency. It threatens the integrity of our civil service. These rights exist for one essential reason: to shield Federal employees from political pressure so that they serve the American people, not the agenda of any one President or political party.
No worker should have to take a political loyalty test to receive or keep his or her job. The Protect America's Workforce Act restores a balanced, targeted framework that respects national security, while reaffirming the rights of those who serve us.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this legislation and restore these protections for over 1 million Federal workers. Again, this particular legislation is about no political loyalty test having to be administered to workers in the Federal Government. They are accountable to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Garcia and Congressman Golden for the opportunity to speak on Protect America's Workforce Act.
Mr. Speaker, I represent 27,000 Federal employees who have been through
They have been stripped of their ability to collectively bargain through President Trump's March executive order. They have been subjected to harassment and questioning of their political loyalties for nonpartisan positions. They live in constant fear that they may lose their jobs due to illegal reduction-in-force efforts that the administration has been trying to get away with.
As a result, we are losing talented and highly skilled workers at rates we can't afford. For Naval Base Kitsap, which includes Submarine Base Bangor and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, that is a national security issue.
I am a proud former union member and the daughter of union members, and I will always fight to protect union rights. What is true about Kitsap, where I grew up, is that we are not red or blue, but we are a union town. That is why I was proud to cosponsor this bill and a proud signer of the discharge petition.
Mr. Speaker, today, I will be a proud ``yes'' vote on passage.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just in support of H.R. 2550, but in support of the right to collectively bargain. This is not a policy idea. It is a lifeline that ensures fair wages, safe workplaces, and the basic dignity that every worker deserves.
Unions like AFGE, Laborers, and IBEW stand on the front lines defending the American Federal workforce.
AFGE represents Federal workers and, in my district, there are 10,000 of them. These men and women care for veterans, help seniors receive timely Social Security payments, and serve as correctional officers at Canaan prison, just to name a few.
When their collective bargaining rights are stripped, they are left without the stability, fairness, and respect they deserve.
Likewise, the Laborers Union, who built and maintained the infrastructure this country runs on; and the IBEW, who work in dangerous conditions at military bases and power plants, depend on these rights to ensure proper training and enforce a safety protocol that prevents accidents and saves lives.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to help bring the Protect America's Workforce Act to the floor today, and I look forward to its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2550, Protect America's Workforce Act.
Earlier this year, an executive order changed the collective bargaining status of tens of thousands of Federal workers. These are career public servants, many of them veterans, who show up every single day to serve our country. Every American deserves a voice in the workplace, and that includes the people who keep our government running and open.
Ensuring collective bargaining rights strengthens our Federal workforce and helps deliver more effective, accountable service to the American people. We must ensure that collective bargaining agreements already in place remain, as well as ensuring that good government goes hand in hand with that.
Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join colleagues across the aisle as being the 218th signature to advance this bill forward.
I thank Congressmen Fitzpatrick and Golden for leading this effort, as well as my fellow Congressmen here, Mr. Bresnahan, as well as Congressman LaLota, for their leadership on this front.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2550, the Protect America's Workforce Act.
Mr. Speaker, we all count on a Federal workforce that shows up every day to serve, not to bend to political pressure or wonder if speaking up will cost them their jobs.
That is exactly the risk if collective bargaining rights are wiped out. It pushes aside a system that has been built over generations to protect workers, protect taxpayers, and keep politics out of public service.
Taking away the voice of Federal workers doesn't make government stronger. It makes it easier for retaliation, harder for whistleblowers, and worse for the people who we represent.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do right by the people who serve our country every day by restoring basic fairness and bringing us back to a system that has worked under both parties for decades.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Protect America's Workforce Act.
In my community, Mr. Speaker, public service is a way of life. More than 80,000 of my neighbors work directly for the Federal Government. These civil servants protect our national security, care for our veterans, process Social Security claims, advance medical research, and respond when disaster strikes.
They have also been on the front lines of President Trump and Russ Vought's Project 2025-inspired efforts to ``traumatize'' the Federal workforce.
Stripping collective bargaining rights is a direct assault on our nonpartisan civil service. This bill says: Not on our watch. That is why I signed the discharge petition on my first day in office.
This bill restores basic rights for Federal employees, defends the merit-based civil service, and honors the spirit of public service that defines my community and communities across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the Protect America's Workforce Act.
Since day one, President Trump has worked to dismantle the institutions that protect workers and weaken the power of organized labor. He dismissed commissioners from the Federal agency responsible for enforcing workforce civil rights, and he stripped the National Labor Relations Board of its quorum.
Then in March, he moved to take away unionization rights from thousands of government workers, including those at the Departments of Defense, State, and Veterans Affairs.
We count on these public servants to be on the front lines, keeping our communities running and our constituents safe. In return, they deserve to have their rights protected. That is why I am a strong supporter of this legislation that will overturn the President's dangerous and illegal executive order eliminating collective bargaining.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the same and vote in favor of this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, despite repeatedly claiming to be the most pro-worker President and administration in history, since taking office, President Trump took action earlier this year that stripped collective bargaining rights from nearly 1 million Federal employees.
These workers are the backbone of our Nation, from nurses caring for veterans, law enforcement officers keeping our communities safe, teachers educating the next generation, and countless others who ensure America runs every day.
That is why I was proud to cosponsor the Protect America's Workforce Act
I urge every Member of this Chamber to join the Congressional Labor Caucus in supporting this crucial legislation. Let's stand with Federal workers in restoring their union rights against these unprecedented attacks on their livelihoods. I urge adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge us to pass this discharge petition.
Earlier this year, Donald Trump did an illegal executive order, stripping a million Federal workers from their collective bargaining rights, rights they have had since 1962.
We have seen this in my home State. In 2011, Governor Scott Walker launched one of the most aggressive attacks on workers' rights, stripping collective bargaining rights.
What happened? Our School of Education had a two-thirds drop in people applying to be teachers. We lost long-term public employees. That affected services.
This bill will restore longstanding collective bargaining protections and ensure that any future administration cannot demolish these rights again.
We hear our Federal employees across the country. We value them, and we are fighting with them. We stand on behalf of the Federal workers that are negatively affected by the President's actions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today outraged at the ongoing assault on the rights and protections of the Federal workers who serve our Nation, over 48,000 of them in Hawaii alone.
Just yesterday, this House passed the NDAA, meant to strengthen our national defense. However, the NDAA means nothing if we cut down, take away rights, and fail to protect the very workforce that makes national defense possible.
Earlier this year, President Trump issued an executive order dismantling collective bargaining agreements for more than 1 million Federal employees.
Let's be clear: The healthcare we fight to make affordable and accessible, the services we promise our veterans, the readiness we demand of our agencies, none of it is real if we undermine the employees who deliver these services on the front lines. Without them, these are just empty promises, just words.
Collective bargaining, grievance procedures, and whistleblower protections are the foundation of the strong civilian workforce that our national security, veterans, and communities across this country rely on.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Our Hawaii Government Employees Association calls the President's action a direct attack on working Americans. That is why I stand firmly with our union ``ohana'' ``family'' across the country in rejecting these union-busting efforts and urging passage of the Protect America's Workforce Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, she mentioned healthcare, and the healthcare system that she is talking about that she says has failed is ObamaCare, what they voted for and they created. I just find it ironic.
I hope every taxpayer in America who gets up in the morning, drives to work, works hard, and pays their taxes is listening to this debate because there is a difference here.
What the President is trying to do is make government more efficient. The argument I am hearing here, and I think the people who work hard and pay taxes are hearing, there is not a single government agency that is at any time inefficient. Every single Federal employee is at 100 percent efficiency and doesn't need to be held accountable. They can work from home and do whatever they want.
We support the Federal workforce. We want to make the Federal workforce hardier. We want the taxpayers to get their money's worth out of the hard-earned taxes that they send to Washington.
What this legislation is doing and the goal is to try to hinder the President's ability to get the backs of the American taxpayer and ensure that every government agency is efficient and every Federal employee is working hard, just like the taxpayers who work hard and pay taxes and send their tax dollars here to Congress for us to appropriate.
I think that is an important part of the discussion that needs to be mentioned on the floor. I hope that a lot of people in America, working hard, frustrated with Washington are watching this debate. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, like Chairman Comer, I also agree, and I hope that the American public is watching this debate right now. Certainly, what they would see if they are watching this debate is not just Democrats advocating for passage, but Republicans advocating for passage. In fact, this is a bipartisan effort to protect Federal workers in this country.
We have heard now from multiple Republicans from the chairman's party who have actually advocated with Democrats to ensure that our President doesn't strip basic protections from our Federal workers. We are talking about our Federal nurses, our firefighters, law enforcement, medical professionals, the men and women who are working across our airports, that are taking care of our nuclear reactors in this country. They deserve the right to organize.
I do agree. I hope the American public is watching and listening to our Republican colleagues and our Democrats support our Federal workers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Mr. Speaker, our Federal workforce deserves a voice. We know the executive order was the largest act of union busting in our Nation's history. It stripped away collective bargaining rights of over a million Federal employees in over 40 Federal agencies.
The agencies covered by the executive order employ nearly 82 percent of the unionized Federal workforce. They are workers in every single congressional district.
These are workers that protect our food, our water, our air, our skies, and care for our veterans, our children, and our seniors. They are our neighbors.
Many people in this Chamber know that a union may have helped them achieve the dream that they have of serving, as well as being able to take care of their families. Many of us are recipients indirectly or directly because of unions.
Collective bargaining isn't a privilege, Mr. Speaker, that can just be signed away. It is a fundamental right. When working people have a voice on their job, services improve, accountability grows, and we all benefit. The bill doesn't just restore fairness, Mr. Speaker. It restores dignity and due process.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Protect America's Workforce Act.
Mr. Speaker, first, I thank Congressman Golden for bringing us together on this important bill.
As co-chair of the Congressional Labor Caucus, I know how critical labor rights are not only for workers in unions but for all American workers. We are all better off because of unions. Healthcare, retirement, safe workplaces, holidays, the length of the workweek, and vacations were negotiated for all of us. We have them because unions negotiated them.
We are here because President Trump signed an executive order seeking to end collective bargaining rights for
Let's get one thing clear: Our Federal employees are absolutely essential to keep our country running.
The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
They are firefighters, nurses, doctors, air traffic controllers, food inspectors, law enforcement, and public safety officials. They impact every part of our lives, and we take them for granted. We cannot hurt them. We must support them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Republican colleagues who have joined us on this bill and encourage those who have not yet recognized this is an opportunity for all of us to work together. Let us show government employees we have their backs.
Mr. Speaker, as our government employees had their rights violated and were treated poorly, spending is up.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Protect America's Workforce Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation to restore collective bargaining rights to hundreds of thousands of Federal workers.
I was raised in Syracuse, New York, in a union household. My mother was a proud CWA member at New York Telephone, and my father a proud union member at New York Central Railroad. I also served as the president of a 400 member teachers' association union representing teachers, nurses, school psychologists, and social workers.
Those who have a union worker in their family understand the guarantee that comes with the union card: fair pay, solid benefits, a secure retirement, and a real path to the middle class.
The indiscriminate stripping of collective bargaining rights through executive action was an illegal gray area if not outright unlawful.
This legislation ends that ambiguity. It should never have been a partisan issue.
The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working together toward this meaningful solution. My father always said that a job is more than a paycheck. It is about dignity. All work is dignified when providing for your family.
Mr. Speaker, the Protect America's Workforce Act lives up to those ideals. Behind every family's American Dream is a good job and often a good union job.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
Congress should be fighting hard for working people all over this country. We should be tackling the cost of living. We should be fighting to provide world-class government services, and we should be fighting for the unions which make all that possible. We should be working hard to expand the right to organize, not turning back the clock on working families. This bill is a huge win for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Golden for his work, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the President has been fighting back against the deals that public sector unions have negotiated for themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer by invoking an existing legal authority.
H.R. 2550 directly threatens that progress by overturning the President's executive order that exercises one of the few tools available to him under the law to more effectively manage the Federal workforce.
Now, it is no secret that accountability problems in the Federal workforce are legendary. It takes a Herculean effort to fire a poorly performing Federal worker or one who is engaged in misconduct.
Collective bargaining agreements often create procedural hurdles to firing such employees, above and beyond steps required in law and regulation.
For example, unions can bring removals before private arbitrators instead of appealing to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The Trump administration is exercising its electoral mandate to address this problem.
For instance, the President has embarked on an ambitious overhaul of the performance management system and is pursuing more streamlined disciplinary procedures.
The reality is that preexisting union agreements the President never signed onto can subvert these efforts. They provide barriers to accountability beyond basic employee protections that exist in law. Perhaps the most inappropriate aspect of Federal collective bargaining agreements come from provisions governing the use of official time, which is when Federal employees are paid by taxpayers to do union business.
Indeed, many Federal employees spend all their time doing union business. More than 3 million Federal employee work hours were spent doing union business time in 2024 alone, according to the OPM report.
The cost to American taxpayers in salary and benefits was more than $200 million. There was an additional $31 million cost for related expenses, primarily the provision of Federal meeting space. The only reason we know this is that the Trump administration collected and reported this 2024 data.
House Oversight Committee Republicans have attempted to legislate annual public reporting on the use and abuse of official time. However, Democrats have consistently opposed even this ounce of accountability.
They have another opportunity to change their ways by supporting the current version of this legislation H.R. 5749, the Official Time Reporting Act. However, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not interested in supporting legislative reforms to bring accountability to the Federal workforce and public sector unions, they should at the very least not roll back existing progress made under this administration.
I, therefore, call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with the American taxpayer by supporting the administration's efforts to bring accountability to the executive branch's workforce and oppose H.R. 2550.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 432, the previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, nays 195, not voting 7, as follows:
Messrs. ALLEN, WEBSTER of Florida, CRAWFORD, STUTZMAN, RESCHENTHALER, EMMER, WALBERG, DAVIDSON, COLE, BABIN, ROUZER, CRANE, and GOSAR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mses. PRESSLEY, SCHAKOWSKY, OMAR, and Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, we marked a solemn day: Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.
On December 7, 1941, our great Nation was suddenly attacked by the Imperial Japanese Navy, killing more than 2,400 American servicemembers and civilians and propelling us into World War II.
On the 84th anniversary of the attack, we remember those brave souls who lost their lives that day, and we honor those who survived. There are only 12 remaining survivors, and they are all over 100 years old.
Unfortunately, none were able to make the trip to Hawaii this year for the remembrance ceremony, but we are forever indebted to their sacrifices. We will forever honor all of the Americans who were at the naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, that day.
Mr. Speaker, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said:
``No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.''
And we did.
God bless those who lost their lives that day, and God bless America.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Dearborn's Divine Child High School for winning the Division 4 State championship with a thrilling 23-22 win.
After a dominant season, they rose to the moment at Ford Field to earn their first State championship in 40 years. It was an incredible game and an accomplishment that these players, coaches, and families will remember forever.
The Falcon players showed grit, heart, and determination from the start to finish. Their offense came alive when it mattered most, and their defense stood strong under pressure.
We saw remarkable leadership on the field and witnessed the team's incredible perseverance through challenges.
I thank the coaches, the families, and all those who helped with the mentorship and planning and the belief in our athletes.
I congratulate the team on a game and a season that they will remember, again, for the rest of their lives. They all brought home a championship, and they did it with teamwork and pride. They made us all incredibly, incredibly happy that day.
They made their school and community and so many smile, so I congratulate the Falcons.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life of retired Oconto County Police Chief Mike Rehberg, who recently lost his courageous battle with cancer.
Chief Rehberg protected and served the people of Oconto County for over three decades. He was known by both the people of Oconto County and his peers for his integrity, compassion, and strong commitment to his job, family, and the community that he loved so much.
He will be remembered for his infectious laughter, mentoring of newer police officers, the stories he loved to tell, and the practical jokes he would play on his fellow officers.
Chief Rehberg represents the very best that we have in northeastern Wisconsin: someone who spent his life in service to his community and did so with a smile on his face.
My prayers are with his wife, Annie, and their four children during this difficult time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Chief Mike Rehberg for his life of service to the people of Oconto County. The legacy he leaves behind will live on in our communities for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, winter is here, and families across the St. Louis region and the country are opening their utility bills with a knot in their stomachs.
Right now, reckless tariff policies and economic uncertainty out of the White House are driving up costs across the country and squeezing working people who are already stretched thin with higher prices at the grocery store, higher rent, and stagnant wages.
That is why, now more than ever, programs like the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, are so critical. Yet earlier this year, the Trump administration wanted to eliminate LIHEAP, a program that supports over 200,000 people in my home State of Missouri.
We should be focused on lowering costs and strengthening essential programs, not cutting critical, lifesaving programs that people rely on to stay warm in the winter.
Heating a home is not a luxury, and families in St. Louis should not be left out in the cold.
Mr. Speaker, in recent years, the number of publicly listed companies in this country has declined, particularly among small and midsized businesses. A key reason for this is that traditional public offerings have become too expensive.
Compliance costs and government red tape have made a traditional IPO out of reach for many American businesses. That is why I have introduced my Regulation A+ Improvement Act.
This bill will update our regulations so more small and midsized companies can raise capital from a wider range of investors and with less government red tape and compliance costs.
This is a commonsense step to make our public markets more accessible, more dynamic, and more competitive. Our capital markets are the envy of the world, but we must continue to modernize outdated regulations that have not kept up with the times.
I am committed to ensuring businesses of all sizes--in northeast Indiana and across the country--have the tools that they need to grow, create jobs, and keep our economy strong.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency is quietly denying us protection from forever chemicals.
While Secretary Kennedy claims he will make America healthy again, the EPA announced it would overturn historical reporting requirements on toxic substances known as PFAS. Exposure to small amounts has been linked to cancer, fertility issues, and immune system failure.
This year alone, the EPA has delayed enforcement on drinking water limits for PFAS, fired EPA scientists researching new forever chemicals, terminated grants for PFAS studies, and approved pesticides known to have PFAS.
Across the political spectrum, legislators have come together to protect our children from dangerous PFAS chemicals. Now this administration is allowing them to be used on cereal grains, peas, beans, tomatoes, oranges, almonds, and more.
Not only is this administration making our groceries more expensive, but they are making our groceries less healthy. We must stand together against these actions. Our children's health depends on it.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in my life, Indiana University has won the Big Ten football championship outright, beating formerly number one Ohio State 13-10.
The pundits said Ohio State brought the third-most talented roster in the country. Indiana was ranked 72 at the start of the season, but our Hoosiers refused to be defined by those numbers. They responded with discipline, toughness, and a belief in one another that reshaped Indiana football.
This championship is a testament to the student-athletes who committed to the rebuild, the staff who kept driving, and our Hoosier fans, who stayed loyal for generations, awaiting this moment.
Mr. Speaker, as a former chairman of IU's Alumni Association and on behalf of 805,000 living IU alumni, we celebrate this historic achievement for our university. Congratulations to Coach Cignetti and our Hoosiers for bringing the Big Ten title home.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of last week, President Trump published his national security strategy. It could have been called his national insecurity strategy.
To say it is bad is a misstatement, understatement. It is disastrous. During Europe's largest land war since World War II, the strategy saves its harshest criticisms for our allies rather than Russia, with war criminal Putin, who started the war.
The document elevates strongman leadership models over democratic values, something unheard of in America. It is focused on spheres of influence and suggests that the strongest person in the region gets to decide the rules. These are not American values.
Previous national security strategies upheld America's commitment to democracy and human rights, strengthened our alliances, and countered powerful first adversaries like Russia and China.
This strategy abandons that tradition in favor of a narrow transactional approach. Notably, the word ``corruption'' is absent from the entire strategy. It is well known that global corruption fuels instability, weakens governments, and its absence is extremely dangerous and allows bad actors to flourish.
The national security strategy abandons our allies, our principles, and the values that have guided American leadership for decades.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sheriff Richard Coleman as Sheriff of the Year for South Georgia from the Georgia Association of Black County Officials.
This statewide recognition is part of GABCO's annual tradition of highlighting county leaders whose work strengthens public service and advances opportunity across Georgia's 159 counties.
Sheriff Coleman is a Savannah native, and he is a proud 30-year Georgia certified peace officer. He is a graduate of Sol C. Johnson High School, holds a bachelor's degree in criminal justice administration, and has a master's degree in public administration.
With extensive experience across all levels of law enforcement, Sheriff Coleman is a certified Georgia law enforcement executive administrator and a former chief of police.
His distinguished career includes roles such as chief of internal affairs, assistant chief of police, and police operations commander.
Sheriff Richard Coleman is committed to continuing his service for the people of Chatham County. I congratulate my friend on this well- deserved honor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 48 million family caregivers in Illinois and across the country.
One in six adults in Illinois are family caregivers. They are a critical part of our healthcare system, yet they often go unpaid and unacknowledged.
Although caregiving is a full-time responsibility, more than 60 percent of family caregivers also hold jobs outside of the home. On top of time, caregivers spend on average 26 percent of their income on out- of-pocket care expenses.
From that financial strain to the emotional burden that caregivers take on, we need to pass policies that improve the care economy for all. I especially acknowledge members of the sandwich generation, folks who take care of both their aging parents and their own children. Please know that we see you, and we appreciate you.
Although National Family Caregivers Month was in November, let's recognize these everyday heroes every month of the year.
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the Kennesaw State University football team brought home the Conference USA title in just their second year competing at the Football Bowl Subdivision level.
The Owls achieved this feat just 1 year after only a two-win season, displaying a remarkable turnaround. Kennesaw State University has made the 11th District and the State of Georgia immensely proud, and we are excited to have the Conference USA Football Championship trophy in Cobb County for the first time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the university leadership, players, staff, and head coach Jerry Mack on an incredible season and a hard-fought win. We wish them the best of luck in their upcoming bowl game.
Mr. Speaker, putting food on the table is about to get exponentially harder thanks to the $187 billion Republicans cut from SNAP in their big, ugly law.
These harmful cuts impact roughly 35,000 Rhode Islanders.
We saw the devastating consequences of SNAP uncertainty when Republicans let funding for the program lapse during the government shutdown. Demand at food pantries across my district shot up.
Thankfully, Rhode Islanders do what they always do and stepped up to care for their neighbors. I have joined volunteers at the Mount Hope Community Center in Providence, the ELISHA Project in Pawtucket, the Milagros Project in Woonsocket, and St. Raymond's Church Food Pantry in Providence.
I heard directly from Rhode Islanders about the pain of rising grocery costs and their fears about losing SNAP.
Many will be working for months to recover from the hardship of just 1 month of late SNAP payments.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor Kaxten McGrew, Bastian Nowak, and Luke Hinkelman as the winners of the 2025 Congressional App Challenge for our district and name them as Ohio's 13th Congressional District's champions of the week.
Their app, Eagle Express, is an innovative system that allows students and teachers to better track and complete transactions within their school's token-based incentive program. The app will help teachers better manage students and students better manage their finances.
Named after STEM High School's mascot, Beak Bucks allow teachers to award points to students for positive behavior in the form of paper money that they can redeem for prizes, but Kaxten, Bastian, and Luke felt this was inconsistent and susceptible to forgery and fraud.
Their app, Eagle Express, establishes online wallets for students to virtually track their Beak Bucks balances and redeem them for prize rewards. Eagle Express also streamlines the process for teachers, creating more efficient ways to track and allocate Beak Bucks.
Mr. Speaker, stories of innovation like these raise my spirits and make me more optimistic for the future of our district and the rest of the country.
Kaxten, Bastian, and Luke are impressive examples of what our children can do when we invest in their futures and set them free to explore their interests.
Mr. Speaker, I, once again, extend to them my congratulations for being named 2025 App Challenge winners for Ohio's 13th Congressional District. We cannot wait to see what the future holds for these three young people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank President Trump and his Secretary of Defense for acting resolutely when it became apparent a boat full of illegal drugs, including fentanyl, was coming across the Caribbean Sea.
Every year in this country about 80,000 people have been dying. It used to be over 100,000 people killed from illegal drugs. For far too long, wimpy Presidents sat there, watched it happen, and didn't do anything.
Finally, President Trump stepped up to the plate when he heard that there was a boat coming with enough fentanyl to kill millions of Americans. He acted resolutely. I am sure he had lawyers who told him he could and lawyers who told him he couldn't. He said, I am going to err on the side of saving tens of thousands of American lives.
Mr. Speaker, I recently found out that I knew somebody whose son died of a fentanyl overdose and how horrible that must be. The rest of their life must be devastated. I am glad President Trump feels their pain, and he is acting strongly in this situation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this year's massive $900 billion military spending bill.
This legislation gives more money to the so-called Department of War than to our Department of Education, Transportation, and Health and Human Services combined.
Mr. Speaker, can you ask my Republican colleagues to get serious about helping the American public? I know you seem to be judged by the content of your character.
It is certainly poor character to be not supporting our military servicemembers and their families. This mammoth bill does not support them either.
It certainly is poor character to block healthcare coverage for IVF, despite the fact that IVF is critical for helping Active-Duty personnel grow their families.
It certainly is poor character to ban initiatives associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion, even though these cuts will undermine military readiness.
This mammoth bill expands the administration's power to attack immigrants, including for our Haitian neighbors.
The few good things in this legislation do not outweigh the cruelty and the harm that will undoubtedly come if it is signed into law. The public does not support this bill and neither do I. That is why I am a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm for our Republic and our Constitution.
Every one of us here in Congress swore a solemn oath to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. We did not give any President a blank check for war.
President Trump is over his skis. Article I of our Constitution, the first power the Founders saw fit to forge into the foundation of our Nation, gave Congress the power to declare war and send our troops into battle. No one person can send our brave sons and daughters into conflict on a whim.
Instead, what have we witnessed? We have witnessed a dangerous, aggressive build-up of U.S. military power in the Caribbean.
Where is the money coming from to do that? What is it being taken from? Lethal strikes against vessels off the coast of Venezuela are increasing. Then the Secretary of Defense allegedly gave an order to kill everybody on a boat. What is the legal authority under which those orders were given?
These strikes both are an escalation abroad and a direct attack on our U.S. Constitution here at home. Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to authorize the funds to pay for war.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly supported this year's national defense bill. We must conduct vigorous oversight to halt this executive branch unilateral war-making. Our soldiers deserve us to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I just introduced bipartisan legislation to stop utility companies from paying bonuses to their CEOs.
This bipartisan bill is for folks in upstate New York working hard to pay their bills and raise their families. They are good, honest people who are sick and tired of being screwed over, ripped off, and left behind in an economy that is rigged against them.
There is a retired nurse in Endicott raising her grandkids on a fixed income, and right now she is trying to decide between the NYSEG bill and the toys on the kids' Santa list. There is a senior in Cochecton who stopped taking her prescriptions because she can't afford the meds and the NYSEG bill. There is a public schoolteacher in Ithaca who had to pick up a second job to make ends meet and still worries about losing her home this winter.
While these families are scraping by, the foreign-owned utility monopolies are jacking up rates again and doling out millions of dollars to CEOs sitting in boardrooms halfway around the world.
Enough is enough.
My bipartisan bill says we are not going to take it anymore. We are not going to let you take money out of our pockets to line the pockets of corporate executives in Spain.
Mr. Speaker, another day, another disgusting pardon by Donald Trump. I will tell you today about Joseph Schwartz.
Joseph Schwartz ran a nationwide nursing home empire and stole $38 million through Medicaid and tax fraud. I want you all to remember that is our money. He cheated American taxpayers. He cheated his employees. He stole money out of their paychecks and kept it for himself instead of paying their taxes. He robbed them of their 401(k)'s. Elderly patients in his care got substandard care.
In April, this swindler was rightly sentenced to 3 years in prison, but he didn't stay long thanks to our President. He gave him a full and unconditional pardon after just 90 days. Trump and the Republicans cut $1 trillion from Medicaid, and Americans are not going to have their healthcare.
Meanwhile, this guy literally steals $38 million from all of us, and Trump lets him walk free and back home to his $1.2 million home. Trump is laughing at his voters. It is disgusting.
