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 53 · Passed House · Mar 21, 2024
Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act
This bill modifies requirements under the Clean Water Act, including requirements concerning water quality criteria, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, the permit program for discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the meaning of waters of the United States. It also limits the issuance of permits under the act.
First, the bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop any new or revised water quality criteria for states through a rule.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Next, the bill modifies the NPDES program, including by providing statutory authority for provisions that shield NPDES permit holders from liability under certain circumstances. It also provides statutory authority for the EPA to issue general permits under the program. The EPA must also provide written notification two years before the expiration of a general permit. If notice is not provided by that deadline, then discharges under the expired permit may continue until a new permit is issued. Finally, the bill extends the maximum term for NPDES permits issued to states or municipalities from 5 to 10 years.
Additionally, the bill modifies the permitting program of the EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. For example, the bill limits the EPA's veto authority to restrict, prohibit, deny, or withdraw the specification by the Corps of a site for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The bill also modifies requirements for general permits to discharge dredge or fill material that are issued on a nationwide, regional, or state basis for particular categories of activities, including by extending the maximum term for a general permit from a period of 5 years to 10 years. It also exempts the Corps from certain consultation and environmental review requirements when reissuing nationwide general permits.
Further, the bill also provides statutory authority for the EPA's decision to approve Florida's request to assume permitting authority from the Corps for the discharge of dredged or fill material. The decision, which was issued in 2020, was subsequently vacated in 2024 by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The bill also directs the EPA and the Corps to begin a process to issue guidance on the implementation of the 2023 final rule titled Revised Definition of "Waters of the United States"; Conforming and stipulates the guidance must comply with the decision of the Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA.
Finally, the bill prohibits permits from being issued under Title IV of the Clean Water Act for any discharges from a point source that is owned or operated by certain foreign counties of concern and any subsidiaries of entities that are subject to the jurisdiction of such countries.
People & committees
Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7] · R–NC
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.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 213 - 205 (Roll no. 101).
House roll call 101 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 213 - 205 (Roll no. 101).
House roll call 101 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 205 - 213 (Roll no. 100).
House roll call 100 · Individual votesMs. Scholten moved to recommit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (text: CR H1328)
The House adopted the amendments en gross 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. 7023.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1085, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Graves (LA) amendment No. 8.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1085, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Bean (FL) amendment No. 7.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1085, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Moolenaar amendment No. 5.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1085, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the James amendment No. 4.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1085, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Houlahan amendment No. 3.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1085, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Garamendi amendment No. 2.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1085, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Bergman amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 7023.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Daniel Meuser 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. 1085 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1023, H.R. 1121, H.R. 6009, H. Con. Res. 86, H. Res. 987 and H.R. 7023. The resolution provides for consideration H.R. 1023, H.R. 1121, H.R. 6009, H. Con. Res. 86, and H. Res. 987 under a closed rule, and H.R. 7023 under a structured rule, each with one hour of general debate. The rule provides for one motion to recommit each on H.R. 1023, H.R. 1121, H.R. 6009, and H.R. 7023.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1085. (consideration: CR H1322-1340; text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H1331-1332)
Rule H. Res. 1085 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1085 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1023, H.R. 1121, H.R. 6009, H. Con. Res. 86, H. Res. 98and H.R. 7023. The resolution provides for consideration H.R. 1023, H.R. 1121, H.R. 6009, H. Con. Res. 86, and H. Res. 987 under a closed rule, and H.R. 7023 under a structured rule, each with one hour of general debate. The rule provides for one motion to recommit each on H.R. 1023, H.R. 1121, H.R. 6009, and H.R. 7023.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 306.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 118-375.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 118-375.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
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.
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.7023 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.7023 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.7023 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.7023 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.