PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 4, 2025
American Water Stewardship Act
This bill reauthorizes several water quality protection and restoration programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and makes related requirements.
Specifically, the bill reauthorizes through FY2031 the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Long Island Sound Partnership program, the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program, the National Estuary Program, and the BEACH Act program.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also modifies some of those programs. For example, the bill modifies the National Estuary Program, including by establishing the Mississippi Sound as an estuary of national significance that may receive support under the program. It also modifies the BEACH Act program, including by allowing states or local governments to use grants provided under the program to identify specific sources of contamination for coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public.
Additionally, the bill modifies the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, including by making federal agencies eligible for grants provided under the program.
The bill also prohibits funding made available for FY2026-FY2031 to carry out specified Clean Water Act programs from being provided to nonfederal entities that are domiciled in, located in, organized under, have a principal place of business in, or have agreements with foreign countries of concern.
Finally, the bill directs the Government Accountability Office to evaluate and report on specified geographic programs of the EPA.
People & committees
Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 378 - 32 (Roll no. 97). (text: CR H2662-2663)
House roll call 97 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 378 - 32 (Roll no. 97).
House roll call 97 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2665-2666)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6422.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2662-2665)
Mr. Taylor moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 485.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-564.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-564.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Discharged
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6422 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6422 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6422 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6422 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.