Aaron Bean (R-FL)· Dec 11, 2025
H.Amdt. 128: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
By voice vote, no names recorded
A Republican bill with 8 Republican cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 221–205
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
The PERMIT Act makes targeted reforms to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to streamline water quality certifications and permitting processes. It introduces new requirements for the commercial availability and cost of treatment technologies when setting water quality standards. The bill extends the terms of certain permits and excludes specific areas, such as groundwater and ephemeral features, from the definition of navigable waters. It also establishes new guidelines for agricultural stormwater and pesticide discharges. Additionally, the act focuses on reducing regulatory backlogs and improving the efficiency of infrastructure projects.
Yes· 3 of 15
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Streamlining the permitting process can reduce costs and delays for businesses needing water-related permits.
- Scored +3
Would farmers be better off under this?
Exempting agricultural stormwater discharges (Section 10) could reduce regulatory burdens on farmers.
- Scored +2
Is this likely to create jobs?
Streamlining permit processes (sections 5, 13, 16) could lead to faster infrastructure development and energy projects, potentially increasing job creation.
The opposite· 3 of 8
- Scored -3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Narrowing the definition of navigable waters (Section 18) and exempting agricultural stormwater discharges (Section 10) could weaken environmental protections.
- Scored -2
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Changes to navigable waters definition could impact Native American communities relying on those waters for resources.
- Scored -1
Would children be better off under this?
Exempting agricultural stormwater discharges (Section 10) could negatively impact water quality and children's health.
What Congress actually voted on
2 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. One of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 221 yes · 205 no
12/11/2025 · Roll call 330 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The House: a last attempt to send the bill back to committee The minority party's final chance to change or stall a bill just before the vote on passage. It almost always fails; when it succeeds, the bill does not get its final vote that day. Motion to recommit rejected 210 yes · 216 no
12/11/2025 · Roll call 329 · recorded as “On Motion to Recommit”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Faster Infrastructure Development: Section 13 mandates nationwide permits for linear infrastructure and pipeline projects that meet specific size limits, which may speed up the delivery of communications, electricity, and transportation.
- Support for Farmers: Section 10 removes the requirement for permits for stormwater discharges from agricultural land that occur in response to precipitation, reducing the regulatory burden on farmers.
- Increased Firefighter Safety: Section 9 provides an exemption for discharges resulting from the aerial application of fire control and suppression products listed by the Forest Service.
- Improved Water Resource Management: Section 24 requires the identification of federal lands suited for water recharge projects and establishes a streamlined permitting process to expand these efforts.
- Reduced Permitting Backlogs: Section 19 directs the Secretary of the Army to reallocate resources to eliminate the backlog of permit applications and jurisdictional determinations.
- Enhanced State Authority: Section 16 protects the permit programs of Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida from being withdrawn without an Act of Congress.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Stricter Legal Standing for Challenges: Section 5(h)(2) limits the ability to challenge certification actions to only the applicant or persons who can prove direct and irreparable economic harm.
- Limited Judicial Remedies: Section 15(t)(3)(B)(ii) prevents courts from vacating or enjoining permits unless there is an imminent and substantial danger to human health or the environment.
- Reduced Environmental Oversight: Section 13(a)(5) removes the requirement for consultation with applicable States under the Endangered Species Act when reissuing nationwide permits.
- Narrower Water Protections: Section 20 excludes groundwater, ephemeral features, and certain waste treatment systems from the definition of navigable waters, which may limit federal protections for these resources.
- Shortened Window for Legal Action: Section 15(t)(1) sets a strict 60-day deadline for filing judicial reviews of permit approvals or individual permits.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Streamlining the permitting process can accelerate infrastructure projects, fostering economic growth. Is this likely to create jobs? — Streamlining permit processes (sections 5, 13, 16) could lead to faster infrastructure development and energy projects, potentially increasing job creation. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Section 2 focuses on cost-effectiveness of sewer overflow controls which could reduce government spending. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Requires review of water quality standards to ensure cost-effectiveness. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Streamlining water quality certifications and general permits (sections 5 and 6) could reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Section 16 aims to streamline the approval process for state permit programs, potentially increasing states' rights in clean water permitting. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requiring the identification of materials needed for certification within 90 days and decisions be based on compliance with sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 improves government transparency.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Streamlining the permitting process can reduce costs and delays for businesses needing water-related permits. Would farmers be better off under this? — Exempting agricultural stormwater discharges (Section 10) could reduce regulatory burdens on farmers. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Streamlined permit processes may benefit development projects favored by billionaires. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Streamlined permit processes may benefit development projects favored by high-income individuals. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Streamlined permit processes may benefit development projects favored by high-net-worth individuals. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Streamlined permit processes may benefit development projects favored by ultra-high-net-worth individuals. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Changes to navigable waters definition could impact Native American communities relying on those waters for resources. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Reduced water quality protections could disproportionately affect African American communities relying on those water sources. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Reduced water quality protections could disproportionately affect Asian American communities relying on those water sources. Would children be better off under this? — Exempting agricultural stormwater discharges (Section 10) could negatively impact water quality and children's health. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Reduced water quality protections could disproportionately affect Hispanic American communities relying on those water sources. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reduced water quality protections could disproportionately affect low-income communities relying on those water sources. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Reduced water quality protections could disproportionately affect middle-class communities relying on those water sources.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport? — Streamlining permitting processes could expedite infrastructure projects, improving public transit. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — Streamlining permitting processes could expedite infrastructure projects, improving roads and bridges. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Narrowing the definition of navigable waters (Section 18) and exempting agricultural stormwater discharges (Section 10) could weaken environmental protections.
Brian Babin (R-TX)· Dec 11, 2025
H.Amdt. 129: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
By voice vote, no names recorded
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)· Dec 11, 2025
H.Amdt. 130: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
By voice vote, no names recorded
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)· Dec 11, 2025
H.Amdt. 131: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
By voice vote, no names recorded
Eric Crawford (R-AR)· Dec 11, 2025
H.Amdt. 132: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
By voice vote, no names recorded
Zachary Nunn (R-IA)· Dec 11, 2025
H.Amdt. 133: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
By voice vote, no names recorded
Scott Peters (D-CA)· Dec 11, 2025
H.Amdt. 134: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
By voice vote, no names recorded
- 12/15/2025
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 12/11/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 221 - 205 (Roll no. 330).
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 221 - 205 (Roll no. 330).
- On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 210 - 216 (Roll no. 329).
- The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
- Ms. McDonald Rivet moved to recommit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (text: CR H5793)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5793-5794)
- Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the House resumed consideration on HR 3898.
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the Chair announced further proceedings on H.R. 3898 would be postponed.
- The House adopted the amendments en gros as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 3898.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 936, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Peters amendment No. 8.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 936, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Nunn (IA) amendment No. 7.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 936, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Crawford amendment No. 6.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 936, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Biggs (AZ) amendment No. 4.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 936, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Biggs (AZ) amendment No. 3.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 936, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Babin amendment No. 2.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 936, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Bean (FL) amendment No. 1.
- GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 3898.
- The Speaker designated the Honorable Addison P. McDowell to act as Chairman of the Committee.
- House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 936 and Rule XVIII.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, H.R. 3628, H.R. 3668 and S. 1071. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, and H.R. 3628 under a structured rule; and H.R. 3668 and S. 1071 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one motion to recommit on H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, H.R. 3628, and H.R. 3668; and one motion to commit on S. 1071.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 936. (consideration: CR H5768-5787; text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H5775-5779)
- 12/9/2025
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 936 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, H.R. 3628, H.R. 3668 and S. 1071. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, and H.R. 3628 under a structured rule; and H.R. 3668 and S. 1071 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one motion to recommit on H.R. 3898, H.R. 3383, H.R. 3638, H.R. 3628, and H.R. 3668; and one motion to commit on S. 1071.
- 7/2/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-180.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 145.
- 6/25/2025
- Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 34 - 30.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/24/2025
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- 6/23/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 6/13/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
- 6/11/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
- 119-HR-4135: To encourage States to participate with the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council's online dashboard for certain covered projects.
- 119-HRES-936: Providing for 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; providing for 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; providing for consideration of the bill (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, and for other purposes; providing for consideration 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; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3668) to promote interagency coordination for reviewing certain authorizations under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1071) to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disinter the remains of Fernando V. Cota from Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery, Texas, and for other purposes; and for other purposes.
- Eric Crawford
Republican · Arkansas
Sam GravesRepublican · Missouri
Jeff HurdRepublican · Colorado
Doug LaMalfaRepublican · California
Burgess OwensRepublican · Utah
David RouzerRepublican · North Carolina
Pete StauberRepublican · Minnesota
David TaylorRepublican · Ohio