Full committee hearing with the chief executives of U.S. automakers.
Witnesses:
Mary Barra, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, General Motors
Antonio Filosa, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Stellantis
Lars Moravy, Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, Tesla
Jim Farley, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company
The One Big Brutal Bill Act and the Trump regime have taken steps to effectively repeal Biden-era CAFE standards. This hearing will, in the words of the climate-science-denying Commerce Republicans, “examine how radical global warming regulations and mandated technologies have driven up the cost of vehicles for American consumers.”
Sen. Cruz statement:
“Americans have been clear that they are hyper-focused on affordability – and so is this committee. The average price of a car has more than doubled in the past decade, driven up by onerous government-mandated technologies and radical environmental regulations. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act took crucial steps to drive costs down with the repeal of the EV mandate and CAFE standards, but we must do more. This hearing will examine how government interference continues to make vehicles expensive and out of reach for American customers and how we can restore competition and choice.”
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
Full committee hearing to receive testimony on legislation under the committee’s jurisdiction.
If you have any questions concerning the hearing, please contact Annabelle Huffman with the Committee staff at [email protected]. If you have any press-related questions, please contact Matt VanHyfte at [email protected].
Members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC), Natural Resources Committee Democrats, and Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats will hold a press conference, making the case that speeding up the buildout of clean energy is the real path to address President Trump’s energy affordability crisis. The event will highlight how House Republicans’ version of permitting reform would lock in higher energy costs for Americans, while gutting community input and rolling back environmental protections — all to favor expensive, dirty fossil fuels over cheap, clean energy.
Speakers:
House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman
U.S. Representative Paul Tonko
U.S. Representative Mike Levin
U.S. Representative Jesús “Chuy” García
House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition
On Thursday, December 11, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a legislative hearing on the following bills:
H.R. 5095 (Rep. Patronis), “Housing Our Military Effectively For Readiness, Operations, and Neutralization of Threats Act of 2025” or the “HOMEFRONT Act of 2025”, to waive historic preservation regulations for military housing and protecting servicemembers from housing non-disclosure agreements
H.R. 5729 (Rep. Crane), “North Rim Restoration Act of 2025”, to expedite restoration of Grand Canyon grounds that have been impacted by the Dragon Bravo Fire
The purpose of this hearing is to continue the Subcommittee’s focus on consolidating Federal agencies and selling public buildings. The hearing builds on the March 2025 hearing about implementing the public buildings reforms passed last Congress.
Witnesses:
Michael Capuano, Member, Public Buildings Reform Board
David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastructure, Government Accountability Office
Andrew Heller, Public Buildings Service Commissioner (Acting), General Services Administration
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Subcommittee
This year, we’ve seen the Trump Administration weaken federal agencies and programs that protect workers’ rights, mass fire federal employees, and launch unprecedented attacks on our civil liberties. But there has also been inspiring resistance. Unions and labor leaders have been at the forefront of resistance: defending the right to unionize, protecting immigrant workers, and advocating for the students, patients, and communities they serve.
On Wednesday, December 10, 2025, at 10:15 a.m., in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold an oversight hearing titled “Abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act by Environmental NGOs.”
Witnesses:
Dan Rohlf, Professor of Law, Director, Earthrise Law Center, Lewis and Clark Law School (Democratic witness)
Regina Lennox, Senior Litigation Counsel, Safari Club International
Travis Joseph, President and CEO, American Forest Resource Council
Todd Wilkinson, South Dakota Rancher
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 allows litigants who win cases to protect endangered species to collect litigation costs (Section 11(g)(4)).
The Equal Access to Justice Act of 1980 authorizes attorney fees to individuals and businesses that win cases against the U.S. Government, but eligibility requirements apply to individuals ($2 million net worth) and businesses ($7 million net worth). On the other hand, there are no requirements applied to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations. Right-wing anti-environmental organizations like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation advocate for limiting the practical application of the Endangered Species Act by limiting these awards to environmental organizations.
Legislation has been introduced, such as the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025 (H.R. 180), to impose such limits.
The proposed FENCES Act would let states escape having EPA designate an area as
“nonattainment” for a national ambient air quality standard by blaming ambient air quality
exceedances on sources outside their borders or outside the country — even though
residents are indisputably breathing unhealthy air.
The Clean Air and Economic Advancement Reform (CLEAR) Act would make several changes to the Clean Air Act, including
amending section 109(d) to extend the current NAAQS review cycle from five years
to 10 years; section 109(b)(1) to allow consideration of attainability when choosing
among a range of air quality standards that are protective of human health and the
environment; section 110(c)(1) to provide states the opportunity to address concerns
in a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission before a Federal Implementation
Plan is issued; and section 1825 to eliminate certain demonstration requirements in a
SIP to promote increased technological innovations in control technologies.
The legislation also includes provisions similar to H.R. 6387 concerning how certain
events including fires, drought, and heat, are considered as part of the NAAQS
process and H.R. 6409 concerning how non-attainment areas are classified as severe
or extreme for ozone or as serious for particulate matter, and sanctions are imposed
for implementation plan deficiencies under section 179.
The Clean Air Act section 319 allows states to petition EPA to exclude air pollution
caused by “exceptional events” from EPA’s consideration in determining whether an area is
violating a national ambient air quality standard. The proposed FIRE Act (H.R. 6387) would revise the
definition of “exceptional event” to explicitly include prescribed fires undertaken to reduce
the risk and severity of wildfires. The bill also would make other changes designed to make
it easier for states to demonstrate that an ambient air quality standard violation resulted
from an exceptional event.
The proposed bill is unnecessary because EPA’s regulations already establish
criteria for prescribed fires to be treated as “exceptional events.” More importantly, the
proposed bill would put public health at risk by relaxing the required demonstration a state
must make for an ambient air quality standard exceedance to be disregarded due to it being
caused by an exceptional event. Such
lax criteria for exceptional events would contravene the statutory principle in Clean Air Act
section 319 “that each State must take necessary measures to safeguard public health
regardless of the source of the air pollution.”
The Clean Air and Building Infrastructure Improvement Act (H.R. 4214) amends section 1097 require EPA to concurrently publish regulations
and guidance for implementing a revised NAAQS and prevent the new or revised
standards from applying to preconstruction permit applications until the
Administrator has published such final regulations and guidance. It also clarifies that
nothing in the subsection eliminates the obligation of a preconstruction permit
applicant to install the best available control technology and lowest achievable
emission rate technology, and clarifies that nothing in the subsection limits the
authority of a state, local, or Tribal permitting authority to impose more stringent
emissions requirements pursuant to a state, local, or tribal law than NAAQS.
The legislation also provides that the 2024 PM2.5 standard shall not apply to the
review and disposition of a preconstruction permit application if a permit application
is completed on or before the date of promulgation of the final designation of an area;
or a public notice of a preliminary determination on a draft permit is provided within
60 days after the date of final designation of an area.
The so-called “New Source Review Permitting Improvement” Act (H.R. 161) would essentially eliminate NSR for emissions-increasing changes made to our nation’s largest industrial sources.
The proposed “Air Permitting Improvements to Protect National Security” Act (H.R. 6373)
would authorize the President to exempt proposed large new or modified semiconductor
manufacturing facilities and facilities that extract, process, refine, or mill a “critical mineral”
from the requirement to “offset” the new air pollution they will cause with air pollution
reductions within the same airshed.
Clean Air Act section 309 grants EPA authority to review and comment on the
environmental impact of (1) legislation proposed by any Federal department or agency, (2)
newly authorized Federal projects for construction and certain other major Federal agency
actions, and (3) proposed regulations published by any Federal department or agency.
The proposed “RED Tape” Act would eliminate all of EPA’s section 309 authority except for
its authority to comment on proposed legislation.
