Full committee hearing with the chief executives of U.S. automakers has been postponed. Ford executive Jim Farley objected that the CEOs of GM, Ford, and Stellantis were asked to testify but not Elon Musk, only a Tesla VP.
“Ford believes that it is essential that any potential hearing adhere to Congress’s longstanding tradition of ensuring comparable treatment for similarly situated companies. The proposed hearing breaks with this tradition by inviting witnesses of different seniorities across the four invited 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
The Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hold an oversight hearing titled “Fix
Our Forests for Affordable and Reliable Water and Power Supplies” on Thursday, January 8,
2026, at 10:00 a.m. in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
The Subcommittee on Energy has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, January 7, 2026,
at 10:15 a.m. (ET) in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled, “American
Energy Dominance: Dawn of the New Nuclear Era.” The hearing will examine developments in
the nuclear industry relating to licensing, deployment, implementation of recently enacted
federal laws, and administration policies to facilitate the expansion of nuclear energy resources
to meet the nation’s urgent energy and security demands.
Maria Korsnick, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute
John Williams, Senior V.P., Technical Services & External Affairs, Southern Company
John Wagner, PhD, Director, Idaho National Laboratory
Judi Greenwald, President and CEO, Nuclear Innovation Alliance
Korsnick:
“Targeted government-sponsored tools to protect consumers, taxpayers, and investors are
needed to manage early-project cost and schedule risk, unlock private capital, and enable
repeatable deployment at scale.”
Williams:
“Mitigate ‘tail risk’ and create a federal program that provides cost sharing over a certain threshold of additional, unanticipated construction costs. The Accelerating Reliable Capacity Act of 2024, proposed by Senator Risch, is
a good example of this concept. Potential legislative consideration: Amend IRS limitations on transferability of tax credits.
Specifically, amend the tax code to eliminate the Section 6418(g)(4) Tax Credit Transfer Restriction to provide “early movers” with more cash flow during construction to mitigate the risk of credit downgrades and the ability to monetize credits based on qualified progress expenditures.”
Wagner: “We must reclaim nuclear leadership to project American values and standards globally.”
Greenwald:
“NRC’s rulemaking independence is clearly in the national interest because it provides nuclear energy — which has enormously important security, environmental, and energy reliability benefits — with the social license to operate.”
On Wednesday, January 7, 2026, at 10:00 AM ET, the Committee on Small Business (the
Committee) will hold a hearing titled “A Voice for Small Business: How the SBA Office of
Advocacy is Cutting Red Tape.” The meeting will convene in room 2360 of the Rayburn House
Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) Office of Advocacy’s (Advocacy) mission, its role in ensuring federal agency compliance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and the importance of regulatory reform to support
small businesses.
H.R. 4593, the Saving Homeowners from Overregulation With
Exceptional Rinsing Act, amends the definition of a showerhead
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) by inserting
the 2024 American Society of Mechanical Engineers definition. This
change in definition opens the door for the Trump Administration
to weaken water efficiency standards for showerheads.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 amended EPCA to include a definition of ‘‘showerhead’’ and set a maximum water flow rate of 2.5
gallons per minute (GPM). However, in response to confusion and
uncertainty over how the EPCA definition of ‘‘showerhead’’ applied
to a showerhead product with multiple nozzles, the Department of
Energy (DOE) issued a regulatory definition in 2013. The definition
clarified that a showerhead must meet the 2.5 GPM statutory
standard regardless of how many individual nozzles the
showerhead system included.
In 2020, the Trump Administration amended the definition of
‘‘showerhead’’ to allow showerheads with multiple nozzles to sidestep the statutory water efficiency standard. More specifically, in
2020, DOE interpreted the updated definition of showerhead to
mean that each showerhead with multiple nozzles would be considered separate in terms of compliance with the 2.5 GPM standard.
This change would increase water and energy use, thereby increasing consumers’ utility bills. In response, the Biden Administration
reversed this action in 2021, asserting that a showerhead with
multiple nozzles must comply with the 2.5 GPM standard.
In April 2025, instead of ensuring regulatory certainty and preserving consumer cost savings, the Trump Administration continued the back-and-forth by signing an executive order directing
DOE to rescind and revise the 2021 Biden Administration definition of a showerhead to ‘‘end the Obama-Biden war on water pressure.’’ However, the water efficiency standards for showerheads
set by Congress in 1992 do not regulate water pressure. Importantly, the standards concern water flow. Water pressure is determined by engineering decisions in the manufacturing process, and
several other factors can interact to impact water pressure and
flow, like clogs, leaks, and sediment build-up. In testing showerheads, Consumer Reports found that water flow does not
predict the performance of a showerhead.
H.R. 4593 attempts to codify an ambiguous and unclear definition of a showerhead, which will only open the door for further regulatory confusion and uncertainty. The definition change proposed
in the bill lends support to the Trump Administration’s misguided
efforts to weaken standards for showerheads, allowing for increased water and energy usage, which, in turn, will raise consumer utility bills.
H.R. 5184, the ‘‘Affordable Housing Over Mandating Efficiency
Standards Act,’’ prevents households that live in manufactured
housing from benefiting from energy efficiency standards that are
established by energy sector experts. Specifically, H.R. 5184
amends Section 413 of the bipartisan Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and removes this authority from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) jurisdiction, thus sending energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes to another federal agency
that does not specialize in energy efficiency rulemaking. Additionally, the bill prevents DOE’s May 2022 energy conservation standard for manufactured housing from taking effect and lowering
household utility bills. For these reasons, the Committee Minority
strongly opposes H.R. 5184.
H.R. 5184 amends section 413 of EISA, shifting authority of
manufactured housing efficiency standards to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). EISA passed in a bipartisan fashion, and Congress explicitly directed DOE to develop energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes. The law directs
DOE to base the standards on the most recent International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) unless the Secretary finds that
IECC is not cost-effective or that a more stringent standard would
be cost-effective. Prior to the passage of EISA, HUD, which was
responsible for energy standards for manufactured homes, had not
updated its energy provisions since 1994.2 EISA requires DOE to
provide notice and the opportunity for comment from manufacturers and stakeholders, and to consult with the HUD Secretary on
energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing.3 DOE has a
rigorous rulemaking process with extensive stakeholder engagement and energy sector expert input, and has significant experience setting energy efficiency standards. Amending Section 413 of
EISA undermines this important DOE authority.
H.R. 5184 also prevents the final rule titled ‘‘Energy Conservation Program: Standards for Manufactured Housing’’ published in
the Federal Register on May 31, 2022, from having any effect. In
May 2022, DOE finalized a court-mandated rule adopting energy
conservation standards for new manufactured homes. The rule will
help those living in manufactured housing save up to $475 per year
on average on their utility bills.4 Energy costs are about 70 percent
higher per square foot in manufactured homes compared to site built homes.5 The median energy burden of manufactured housing
residents is 39 percent higher than that of single-family households.6 The Committee Minority believes it is important to support
this standard and the crucial savings the standard will provide for
these households.
In developing the May 2022 final rule, DOE consulted HUD to
appropriately balance the upfront costs of manufactured homes
with long-term affordability, recognizing that ‘‘access to affordable
housing and reducing energy burdens of the purchasers are of the
utmost importance in the manufactured housing market.’’ 7 Thus,
to accommodate price-sensitive, low-income purchasers of manufactured homes, DOE adopted a tiered approach based on the size of
the manufactured home in the final rule.8 As such, the final rule
is cost-effective, with the benefits of the rule far outweighing the
costs.
Additionally, H.R. 5184 was amended during the November 19,
2025, Subcommittee on Energy markup to allow DOE to submit
recommendations for revisions to HUD’s conservation standards for
manufactured housing based on specific criteria. While the amendment marginally improved the bill by removing the outright repeal
of section 413 of EISA, the amendment still failed to address the
major flaws in the underlying bill. As amended, H.R. 5184 still nullifies DOE’s May 2022 manufactured housing energy conservation
standard, jeopardizing more than $5 billion in savings for manufactured housing residents.9 As amended, the bill still undermines
DOE’s authority to set efficiency standards by shifting the responsibility to HUD. The bill fails to specify what HUD should do with
DOE’s recommendations; even if DOE submitted recommendations,
it is likely that they will have no effect.
Entrusting HUD with setting efficiency standards for manufactured homes will not improve affordability. As previously mentioned, when HUD was the lead agency responsible for setting energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes prior to the passage of EISA, the agency had failed to meaningfully update the
standards since 1994, leaving manufactured housing residents with
disproportionately high energy bills for years. By repealing DOE’s
court-mandated and long-awaited energy conservation standard for
manufactured homes, H.R. 5184 deprives residents of significant
and desperately needed cost savings. At a time when electricity
prices are up thirteen percent nationwide, strong energy efficiency
standards are imperative to safeguard consumers.
On Thursday, December 18, 2025, the Committee on Homeland Security will hold a
Member Day hearing to receive testimony from Members on proposed legislation within the
Committee’s jurisdiction. The Committee will meet at 12:00 p.m. EST in 310 Cannon House
Office Building.
Members wishing to testify before the Committee at this hearing should relay their
intention to attend to Sean Corcoran, Chief Clerk, at [email protected] no later than
12:00 p.m. EST, Tuesday, December 16, 2025.
Federal actions have caused concerns about potential liability in the wake of EPA’s designation of two PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability (CERCLA) Act. This hearing is an opportunity to assess the current statutory and regulatory landscape for PFAS and consider what steps Congress may need to take to respond to these concerns.
Lawrence W. Falbe, Esq., Chair, International Council of Shopping Centers Environmental and Land Use Policy Committee
G. Tracy Mehan, Executive Director, Government Affairs, American Water Works Association
Emily Donovan, Co-Founder, Clean Cape Fear
The prepared testimony of Bodine, a George W. Bush EPA official and corporate polluter lawyer and lobbyist, questions the risks of PFOA and PFAS (“I don’t believe anyone would argue that PFOA and PFOS are benign. But, it is possible that EPA has overstated the risks through its selection of critical effects and studies”), criticizes CERCLA (“draconian consequences”), and recommends shielding “inadvertent parties” from Superfund liability, saying Superfund is sufficiently capitalized (“the EPA Superfund program is now funded at historically high levels and can take action to address any actual health risks caused by releases associated with an exempt party”).
The prepared testimony of Falbe, a corporate polluter lobbyist and lawyer, claims a “chilling effect on real estate transactions and development” because “CERCLA’s strict, joint-and-several, retroactive liability framework—applied to ubiquitous legacy chemicals—will unintentionally shift cleanup costs onto passive receivers - like shopping center owners and small businesses.” His testimony also calls CERCLA “draconian.” Falbe calls for a “‘passive receiver’ exemption” from Superfund liability for “real estate owners, particularly in the retail sector.”
The prepared testimony of Mehan calls for an “exemption for water and wastewater utilities” from Superfund liability for PFAS, specifically H.R. 1267, the Water Systems PFAS Liability Protection Act.
Donovan, who is a member of the National PFAS Contamination Coalition, testified in opposition of CERCLA exemptions.
On Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, the Committee on Natural Resources will meet to consider four pieces of legislation.
S. 2273, Wyoming Education Trust Modernization Act
S. 2546, A bill to provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs.
S. 2881, A bill to provide for the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain Federal land in the State of California, and for other purposes.