The December Legislative Sprint: A Comprehensive Analysis of the 119th Congress’s Year-End Agenda

Dec 12, 2025

Executive Summary

The second week of December 2025 witnessed a flurry of legislative activity on Capitol Hill as the 119th Congress raced to conclude its legislative business before the year-end recess. This period, spanning from December 8 to December 11, was defined by a stark dichotomy in legislative priorities and procedural strategies between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House, leveraging its Republican majority, advanced a robust "energy dominance" and capital markets deregulation agenda, passing a suite of bills designed to streamline infrastructure permitting, bolster grid reliability against rising artificial intelligence (AI) demands, and modernize access to private capital.1

Simultaneously, a rare bipartisan coalition emerged in the House to pass significant labor legislation, the Protect America’s Workforce Act, which served as a direct legislative rebuke to executive actions regarding federal employee collective bargaining rights.4 This move utilized a discharge petition—a seldom-successful procedural mechanism—underscoring the intensity of the debate surrounding the civil service.

In the Upper Chamber, the Senate’s focus was heavily tilted toward personnel and judicial confirmations, utilizing en bloc resolutions to process large batches of nominees for administrative, diplomatic, and judicial posts.1 This was juxtaposed with complex procedural maneuvering surrounding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and targeted legislation addressing historical grievances for Native American tribes, most notably the Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act.1

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of these events, dissecting the statutory details of the passed legislation, the political dynamics driving the votes, and the broader implications for American governance, economic policy, and national security.

---

Part I: The Battle for Energy Dominance and Infrastructure Reform

A central pillar of the House's legislative calendar for the week was a concerted effort to reshape the regulatory environment governing American energy production and infrastructure. Framed by proponents as essential for "unleashing American energy dominance" and securing the grid against modern threats, the legislative package sparked intense debate regarding environmental protections, the role of federal agencies, and the future of renewable energy integration.

1.1 The PERMIT Act: Streamlining vs. Environmental Protection

The flagship piece of legislation in this domain was H.R. 3898, the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act. Passed by the House on December 11, 2025, by a vote of 221–205 1, this bill represents a significant overhaul of the permitting processes mandated by the Clean Water Act (CWA), specifically targeting perceived bureaucratic bottlenecks in infrastructure development.

1.1.1 Statutory Objectives and Provisions

The PERMIT Act aggregates several distinct legislative initiatives aimed at reducing the time and cost associated with federal environmental reviews. The legislation is designed to address complaints from industry stakeholders, such as the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), who argue that the current regulatory landscape is an "unpredictable" morass that inflates costs and delays essential projects.5

Key Provisions:

• Reform of Section 401 Permitting: The bill seeks to limit the scope and duration of state-level reviews under Section 401 of the CWA. Historically, Section 401 has empowered states to certify whether a federal project complies with state water quality standards. This authority has occasionally been utilized by states to block interstate pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure on environmental grounds. The PERMIT Act aims to ensure this process is "efficient" and creates a clearer path for "certainty" in resolving actions, effectively narrowing the criteria states can use to deny certification.6
• Nationwide Permit Program Expansion: It modifies the Nationwide Permit (NWP) program, extending the duration of permits from five to ten years. This change is designed to provide longer-term certainty for developers, particularly in the housing and energy sectors, by reducing the frequency of required renewals and the associated administrative burden.5
• Codification of WOTUS Exclusions: The legislation codifies long-standing exclusions to the "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) definition, such as for ephemeral features and prior converted cropland. This move is intended to shield these categories from future regulatory expansion by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Army Corps of Engineers, responding to years of litigation and regulatory uncertainty following the Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court decision.5
• Judicial Review Limitations: A critical and controversial component of the bill is the establishment of strict timelines and standing requirements for judicial review. It limits who can challenge a permit to the applicant or entities suffering "irreparable economic harm," effectively narrowing the window for environmental NGOs to litigate based on ecological harm alone. It also mandates that litigation must be initiated within 30 days of a final agency action, with courts required to issue decisions within 120 days.7

1.1.2 Legislative Debate and Amendments

The floor debate was robust, reflecting a fundamental ideological divide regarding the balance between economic development and environmental stewardship.

Supporters, including the NAHB and energy sector advocates, argued that the current regulatory landscape adds prohibitive costs and reduces the availability of buildable lots, exacerbating the housing crisis. Representative Mike Collins (R-GA), a key sponsor, framed the bill as a necessary modernization of a 1972 law that has become "cumbersome" and "abused by frivolous litigation".6 The argument posits that efficiency in permitting is not synonymous with environmental degradation but is essential for maintaining American competitiveness and infrastructure resilience.

Conversely, opponents, including the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), criticized the bill for attempting to "cut out community engagement" and "legal redress." They argued that narrowing judicial review and expanding permit durations would advantage "polluting and expensive fossil fuel projects" at the expense of public health and water quality. The LCV specifically highlighted that the bill would allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to exclude waterbodies from protections and weaken the EPA's ability to prevent pollution.8

Several amendments were considered and adopted, further shaping the bill's impact:

• The Babin Amendment: Representative Brian Babin (R-TX) successfully added a provision refining the judicial review process for Section 401, specifically regarding interstate transmission facilities and FERC actions. This amendment reinforces the strict standing and timeline requirements, aiming to prevent projects from being stalled indefinitely in the courts. This was seen as a direct response to litigation that has delayed pipeline projects in recent years.7
• The Bean Amendment: Representative Aaron Bean (FL) introduced language to codify dredge and fill permitting programs administered by specific states (Florida, Michigan, New Jersey). This amendment facilitates other states' ability to assume this authority, promoting a federalist approach to wetland management that decentralizes control away from Washington.1
• The Biggs Amendments: Representative Andy Biggs (AZ) successfully extended the definition of "prior converted cropland" exclusion from five to ten years. Additionally, he passed an amendment directing the Army Corps to identify federal lands suitable for aquifer recharge projects, establishing expedited permitting pathways for such initiatives. This reflects a growing concern for water scarcity in the West and a desire to utilize federal lands for water management solutions.1
• The Peters Amendment: In a move to bolster international cooperation on water management, Representative Peters passed an amendment authorizing the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) to accept funds for wastewater treatment and flood control, addressing cross-border sewage issues that affect regions like San Diego.1

1.1.3 Implications for Federalism and Industry

The passage of the PERMIT Act signals a strong legislative preference in the House for prioritizing speed and economic certainty over expansive environmental review. By codifying WOTUS exclusions and restricting judicial review, the House is attempting to insulate infrastructure projects—ranging from housing developments to pipelines—from the shifting regulatory priorities of different administrations.

However, the strict limitations on judicial standing and the short statute of limitations for filing suits are likely to face significant scrutiny. Legal scholars suggest that defining standing purely through "economic harm" could face constitutional challenges regarding access to the courts. Furthermore, while the bill passed the House, its reception in the Senate remains uncertain, where concerns about undermining the foundational protections of the CWA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) remain prevalent among the Democratic majority.

1.2 Grid Reliability and the "Firm Power" Mandate

A second major thrust of the energy package was H.R. 3628, the State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act, which passed on December 11 by a vote of 218–207.1 This legislation represents a federal intervention in state-level utility planning, traditionally the domain of state Public Utility Commissions (PUCs).

1.2.1 The "Must Consider" Requirement

The core mechanism of H.R. 3628 is an amendment to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). It mandates that state public utility commissions and regulated electric utilities formally consider the "reliable availability of electric energy" over a 10-year planning horizon.2

Crucially, the bill defines "reliable generation facilities" in a way that critics argue systematically favors fossil fuel and nuclear assets over variable renewable sources like wind and solar. A "reliable" facility is defined as one capable of generating or procuring power without interruption for at least 30 consecutive days, including during extreme weather events.9 This definition excludes most standalone wind and solar installations, which are intermittent by nature, unless paired with massive—and currently expensive—battery storage systems.

1.2.2 The Debate: Reliability vs. Transition

Proponents, led by sponsor Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO), argued that the bill addresses an "energy crisis" driven by skyrocketing utility costs and grid instability. They framed the legislation as a "fair and balanced approach" ensuring a diverse energy mix that includes firm, dispatchable resources capable of weathering extended disruptions. Rep. Evans cited the rising costs in his home state of Colorado as evidence of the need for a recalibration of energy priorities.2

Opponents viewed the bill as a thinly veiled attempt to prop up aging fossil fuel infrastructure that might otherwise be retired due to market forces or state-level decarbonization mandates. The LCV argued that the bill "attempts to legislate fossil fuel companies' misinformation" regarding the reliability of renewables. They contended that requiring states to favor plants that can run for 30 days continuously effectively sidelines wind and solar, hindering the transition to clean energy and potentially locking ratepayers into expensive fossil fuel contracts well beyond their economic viability.8

1.2.3 Socio-Economic and Technical Amendments

The House adopted several amendments that highlighted the complexities of this mandate:

• The Moore Amendment: Rep. Moore (WV) added a provision directing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review existing Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) processes to determine if states are adequately considering reliable generation.1 This aims to provide an evidentiary basis for the necessity of the federal mandate.
• Rejected/Withdrawn Proposals: Amendments attempting to qualify energy storage as "reliable" or requiring findings that the bill would not increase electricity costs were proposed but ultimately did not alter the bill's core trajectory. This underscored the friction between the bill's mandates and the technical realities of modern grid management, where battery storage is increasingly viable for short-term but not month-long duration.10

1.3 Securing the Supply Chain for the AI Era

Complementing the focus on generation was H.R. 3638, the Electric Supply Chain Act, sponsored by Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH). This bill passed with a wider margin of 267–159 1, reflecting broader bipartisan concern over supply chain vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure.

1.3.1 Addressing the AI Energy Crunch

The bill directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct periodic assessments of the supply chain for electricity generation and transmission. A significant, modern driver for this legislation is the anticipated surge in electricity demand from data centers and artificial intelligence (AI) development. Rep. Latta explicitly linked energy security to technological dominance, stating, "We must ensure that we have the right policies in place to have enough energy to power AI and make America an attractive place to build the entire AI supply chain".3

This legislative focus acknowledges a growing reality: the computational power required for generative AI is creating an unprecedented load on the U.S. electric grid, necessitating a rapid build-out of transmission and generation capacity that is currently hamstrung by supply chain bottlenecks.

1.3.2 Identifying Vulnerabilities

The mandated reports would evaluate risks such as foreign dependencies, manufacturing limitations, and workforce shortages. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) strongly endorsed the bill, noting that while dependence on Chinese materials has decreased by more than 32% since 2018, greater transparency is needed. NEMA highlighted that the industry faces potential deficits in power transformers and distribution transformers—critical components for stepping down voltage for end-users—of 30% and 10% respectively by 2025.3

1.3.3 Amendments and National Security

The House adopted several amendments that sharpened the bill's focus on national security and workforce readiness:

• The Gosar/Biggs Amendment: Requires reporting on vulnerabilities due to the employment of noncitizens at critical energy facilities, introducing an immigration and personnel security dimension to the supply chain assessment.1
• The McGuire Amendment: Specifically targets "foreign entities of concern" (a term often used to designate Chinese or Russian state-linked firms) that might disrupt supply chains to undermine U.S. leadership in AI development.1
• The Min Amendment: Expands the study to include advanced transmission technologies like advanced conductors. This acknowledges that solving the grid crisis is not just about building more lines, but making existing lines more efficient—a key priority for clean energy advocates.1
• The Houlahan Amendment: Requires the DOE to evaluate how veterans, transitioning servicemembers, and military spouses can support workforce needs in the electricity supply chain. This addresses the acute labor shortage of skilled electricians and line workers required to modernize the grid.12

While generally supported by industry, some Democrats like Rep. Frank Pallone opposed the bill, arguing it placed "additional directives" on the DOE without assessing existing capacities or providing additional funding, potentially burdening the agency's staff.3

1.4 Centralizing Pipeline Reviews

Rounding out the energy package was H.R. 3668, the Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act. This bill addresses the complex, multi-agency review process for natural gas pipelines by designating the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the lead agency for NEPA reviews.13

The legislation mandates that all agencies involved in a review (such as the EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.) must be identified within 30 days and formally designated within 60 days. This strict timeline is intended to prevent "late-stage conflicts" and "surprise demands" that have historically delayed pipeline projects, sometimes for years.

Critics, however, warn that empowering FERC—an agency they claim rarely rejects pipeline applications—over other agencies could "subvert environmental protections." By making FERC the ultimate arbiter of the schedule and scope, opponents argue the bill sidelines critical concerns regarding water quality, endangered species, and community impact that are typically the purview of other specialized agencies.8

---

Part II: Financial Market Reform and the INVEST Act

Parallel to the energy debates, the House advanced significant legislation aimed at modernizing U.S. capital markets. H.R. 3383, the Incentivizing New Ventures and Economic Strength Through Capital Formation (INVEST) Act, passed on December 11 by a vote of 302–123.1 This bipartisan package aggregates over 20 individual bills designed to expand access to private markets, streamline regulations for small businesses, and update disclosure rules.

2.1 The Context: A Declining Public Market

The central premise driving the INVEST Act is the observation that the number of U.S. public companies has precipitously declined—from roughly 8,800 in 1997 to fewer than 4,000 in 2024.14 This contraction limits the investment options available to "Main Street" investors, as much of the corporate growth in the modern economy occurs in private markets (venture capital and private equity) that are legally restricted to wealthy "accredited" investors.

2.2 Expanding Access to Private Capital

To address this disparity, the INVEST Act introduces several transformative provisions:

• Modernizing the "Accredited Investor" Definition: The bill moves away from a strictly wealth-based definition of an accredited investor (currently requiring a net worth of over $1 million or high annual income). It creates new pathways to accreditation based on professional licensure, education, or experience. This change aims to democratize access to high-growth private equity and venture capital opportunities, allowing sophisticated but not necessarily wealthy professionals to participate in these markets.14
• Closed-End Fund (CEF) Reforms: The Increasing Investor Opportunities Act, included in the package, allows closed-end funds (CEFs) to invest more freely in private funds. CEFs are publicly traded funds that can hold illiquid assets. By loosening restrictions, the bill allows retail investors to buy shares of a CEF that, in turn, holds a portfolio of private equity assets. It also removes certain loopholes that have allowed "activist investors" to take over CEFs and force them into liquidity events, a provision strongly supported by the Investment Company Institute (ICI) as a measure to protect long-term shareholders.15

2.3 The Controversy Over Fee Disclosures (AFFE)

One of the most contentious elements of the INVEST Act was the provision regarding "Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses" (AFFE). The legislation proposes to allow business development companies (BDCs) and registered investment companies to omit the costs incurred when investing in BDCs from their fee tables.16

• The Proponent View: Supporters, including the ICI and sponsors like Rep. Huizenga, argue that the current disclosure rules amount to "double counting" of fees. They contend that this inflates the perceived expense ratio of funds investing in BDCs, discouraging investment in these vehicles. Since BDCs are a critical source of financing for small and mid-sized American businesses, proponents argue that fixing this disclosure rule is essential for capital formation.15
• The Opponent View: Consumer advocates and some financial analysts, such as Morningstar, argue this sets a "dangerous precedent" by hiding the true cost of investing. They contend that AFFE disclosures reflect the economic reality that investors in fund-of-funds structures bear multiple layers of fees (the management fee of the fund they buy plus the fees of the underlying BDCs). Removing this transparency, they argue, makes it harder for investors to compare costs and harms investor protection.16

2.4 Regulatory Modernization and Small Business Support

The act also includes several other modernization efforts:

• Improving Disclosure for Investors Act: This provision makes electronic delivery the default mechanism for regulatory documents, aiming to modernize communication while retaining an opt-out for those who prefer paper. This is expected to save millions in printing and mailing costs for funds.15
• Office of Small Business: The bill creates an "Office of Small Business" within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to better coordinate capital formation policies for smaller entities.14
• Testing-the-Waters Expansion: It expands "testing-the-waters" provisions—which allow companies to gauge investor interest before a full public offering—to all issuers, not just Emerging Growth Companies. This is designed to encourage more companies to consider going public by reducing the risk of a failed IPO.14

The passage of the INVEST Act with substantial bipartisan support (302 votes) indicates a broad consensus in the House that the current regulatory framework for capital formation is outdated. However, the opposition from 123 members suggests lingering concerns about the balance between deregulation and investor protection, particularly regarding fee transparency and the risks of exposing retail investors to the volatility of private markets.

---

Part III: Restoring Labor Rights in the Civil Service

In a significant move that transcended typical party lines, the House voted to pass H.R. 2550, the Protect America’s Workforce Act, on December 11. The vote of 231–195 saw 20 Republicans join all Democrats to pass the measure.17 This legislation represents a major flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the nature of the federal civil service and the power of the executive branch.

3.1 The Context: Executive Orders and "Schedule F"

The legislation was a direct response to a series of executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump (and anticipated to be reinstated or expanded in a future administration). These orders sought to fundamentally reshape the federal workforce by:

1. Stripping Collective Bargaining Rights: The orders aimed to remove collective bargaining rights from a vast swath of the federal workforce—approximately 67%—on the grounds of national security and flexibility. Agencies targeted included the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Justice.18
2. Creating "Schedule F": The orders sought to create a new employment category, "Schedule F," for policy-related positions. Employees reclassified into Schedule F would lose their civil service protections, effectively making them at-will employees who could be hired or fired based on political loyalty rather than merit.4

3.2 The Legislative Response and Strategy

Led by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), H.R. 2550 effectively nullifies these executive orders. It statutorily reinstates collective bargaining rights and prevents agencies from unilaterally canceling union contracts.4

• The "Discharge Petition" Strategy: The bill's path to the floor was notable for its use of a discharge petition. This procedural mechanism allows a majority of the House (218 members) to force a bill out of committee and onto the floor for a vote, bypassing the control of the Speaker and committee chairs. The petition reached the requisite 218 signatures in November, a rare feat that underscores the intense grassroots pressure from federal employee unions and the willingness of a bloc of moderate Republicans to defy leadership on labor issues.19

3.3 Arguments and Implications

Proponents argued that collective bargaining is essential for a stable, apolitical civil service. Rep. Fitzpatrick emphasized that restoring these rights "strengthens a system that keeps government effective, stable and responsive." He argued that civil service protections are necessary to ensure that government employees can serve the public interest without fear of political retribution.4 Unions like the AFL-CIO hailed the vote as a reversal of "the single largest act of union-busting in American history," framing the vote as a victory for the freedom of association.17

Opponents, led by figures like Rep. James Comer (R-KY), argued that federal unions create barriers to accountability. Comer cited the cost of "official time"—paid time spent by federal employees on union business—as a misuse of taxpayer funds, estimating the cost at over $200 million annually. He argued that the executive branch requires greater flexibility to manage its workforce and remove underperforming employees.4

The passage of H.R. 2550 is a significant victory for federal labor unions, but its future in the Senate is uncertain. While a companion bill exists, the 60-vote threshold remains a formidable barrier. Nevertheless, the House vote sends a powerful political signal regarding the limits of executive authority over the civil service and sets the stage for future battles over the "administrative state."

---

Part IV: Tribal Sovereignty and Remedying Historical Wrongs

Amidst the high-stakes battles over energy and labor, Congress also advanced critical legislation addressing the rights, lands, and historical grievances of Native American tribes. This legislative track demonstrated a quiet but effective bipartisan commitment to Tribal sovereignty.

4.1 The Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act

On December 11, the Senate passed H.R. 165, the Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act.1 This bill, which had previously passed the House, directs the Secretary of the Interior to take approximately 40 acres of land at the Wounded Knee site into "restricted fee status" for the Oglala Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes.20

• Historical Significance: The site is the location of the 1890 massacre where hundreds of Lakota men, women, and children were killed by U.S. troops. For over a century, the land remained in private hands, often subject to commercial exploitation or neglect. The Tribes recently acquired the land from private owners.
• Legal Mechanism: The act places the land in "restricted fee status." This is a distinct legal category from "trust land." It ensures the tribes retain direct ownership of the title, but the land is protected from alienation (sale) and taxation by the federal government. Crucially, the act enforces a covenant agreed upon by the tribes that prohibits commercial development or gaming on the site. This ensures the land will be maintained strictly as a sacred memorial and a place for healing.21

4.2 Expanding Tribal Jurisdiction and Safety

The Senate also passed a raft of other tribal bills on December 11, reflecting a broader push to empower tribal governments:

• BADGES for Native Communities Act (S. 390): This legislation addresses the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous people (MMIP). It requires federal law enforcement agencies to improve reporting, data collection, and coordination with tribal agencies regarding cases of missing or murdered Indians. It aims to close the "jurisdictional gaps" that often allow these cases to go unsolved.1
• Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act (S. 723): This bill mandates strict deadlines for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to process mortgage packages. The BIA's bureaucratic delays in processing title documents have historically made it extremely difficult for Native Americans to obtain mortgages on trust land, contributing to a severe housing shortage on reservations. This act aims to facilitate access to private capital for housing.1
• Water Rights Settlements: The Senate passed technical corrections and amendments to water rights settlements for several tribes, including the Crow Tribe (S. 240), Shoshone-Paiute (S. 546), and Navajo Nation (S. 640). In the arid West, these settlements are existential, converting "paper water rights" into actual wet water infrastructure and funding.1
• Restoration of Lands: Several bills returned specific lands or corrected boundaries for tribes, including the Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Amendments Act (S. 622) and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act (S. 642). These acts are part of the broader "Land Back" movement, utilizing legislative means to restore tribal land bases diminished by past federal policies.1

---

Part V: National Security, Diplomacy, and Personnel

The week also saw significant activity regarding national defense authorizations, the positioning of the U.S. against global threats, and the confirmation of key personnel.

5.1 The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Saga

The Senate engaged in complex procedural maneuvering regarding S. 1071, the legislative vehicle for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). On December 11, the Senate voted 75–22 to lay the House message accompanying the bill before the Senate.1

• Procedural Mechanics: The Senate majority leader filed a motion to concur with the House amendment, setting up a cloture vote for Monday, December 15. This indicates the final stages of negotiation are concluding. The strong vote to proceed (75-22) suggests broad bipartisan support for the core defense package, despite disagreements on peripheral issues.
• Contentious Issues: Notably, the labor rights provisions (similar to those in the Protect America's Workforce Act) were removed from the final NDAA draft due to a lack of Senate GOP support. This necessitated the separate passage of H.R. 2550 in the House, illustrating how the NDAA often serves as a magnet for unrelated policy riders that must be shed to ensure the bill's final passage.4

5.2 The "Trojan Horse" Threat: China and Autos

The Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party held a hearing titled "Trojan Horse: China's Auto Threat to America" on December 11.1 The hearing focused on the national security risks posed by Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) and "connected" cars. Lawmakers expressed concern that these vehicles, equipped with LiDAR, cameras, and advanced sensors, could collect vast amounts of data on American infrastructure and drivers. There were also fears that such vehicles could be disabled remotely in a conflict scenario. This hearing aligns with the broader legislative focus on supply chain security seen in the passage of the Electric Supply Chain Act, reinforcing a bipartisan consensus on decoupling critical technologies from China.

5.3 Nominations and the Diplomatic Corps

In a bid to fill vacancies before the year's end, the Senate utilized S. Res. 532 to process a massive block of nominations. This "en bloc" resolution, passed 52–47, confirmed dozens of officials across the Departments of Labor, Homeland Security, Defense, and State.1

Key Confirmations:

• Diplomatic Posts: The Senate confirmed Ambassadors to key nations, including South Africa (Leo Brent Bozell III), Spain (Benjamin Leon, Jr.), Bangladesh (Brent Christensen), Latvia, Peru, and Romania. Filling these posts is critical for U.S. foreign policy, particularly in regions like the Sahel and Eastern Europe where geopolitical competition is intense.
• Administrative Roles: Confirmations included Assistant Secretaries for Labor, Defense, and Treasury, as well as the General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security.
• Judicial Confirmations: Earlier in the week, the Senate confirmed Robert P. Chamberlin and James D. Maxwell II as District Judges for Mississippi, and William J. Crain for Louisiana, continuing the steady pace of reshaping the federal judiciary.1

The use of the en bloc resolution—a tool that bundles multiple nominees into a single vote—was essential to overcoming procedural hurdles and the ticking clock of the legislative session. However, the close vote (52-47) indicates that the minority party remains wary of expediting the majority's appointees without individual debate.

5.4 Impeachment Resolution Tabled

On December 11, the House addressed H. Res. 939, a privileged resolution introduced by Rep. Al Green (D-TX) to impeach President Donald Trump. The House voted 237–140 to table the resolution effectively killing it.1

• Voting Dynamics: The vote saw a significant number of Democrats (47) voting "present" rather than opposing the tabling motion. This illustrates a tactical division within the Democratic caucus. While the progressive wing seeks to hold the former President accountable, leadership and moderates are likely wary of the political capital required for another impeachment effort, preferring to focus on legislative wins like the Protect America's Workforce Act.

---

Part VI: Comparative Data and Voting Analysis

The following tables provide a structured breakdown of the key legislative actions taken during this period.

Table 1: Key Legislation Passed (House of Representatives)

Bill Number	Short Title	Vote Count	Party Breakdown (Approx.)	Key Objective
H.R. 3898	PERMIT Act	221–205	Mostly Party Line	Streamline CWA permitting; limit judicial review; codify WOTUS exclusions.
H.R. 3628	State Planning for Reliability Act	218–207	Mostly Party Line	Mandate state consideration of "firm" (30-day) power generation in planning.
H.R. 3638	Electric Supply Chain Act	267–159	Bipartisan Support	DOE study on grid supply chain, AI demand, and foreign dependencies.
H.R. 3383	INVEST Act	302–123	Strong Bipartisan	Expand access to private markets; modernize accredited investor rules; CEF reform.
H.R. 2550	Protect America's Workforce Act	231–195	Bipartisan (20 GOP Yeas)	Nullify Schedule F executive orders; restore federal collective bargaining.
H. Res. 939	Impeachment of Donald Trump	237–140	Tabled (Killed)	Attempt to impeach the former President; tabled with 47 Democrats voting "Present."

Table 2: Key Legislation Passed (Senate)

Bill Number	Short Title	Vote Count	Outcome	Key Objective
H.R. 165	Wounded Knee Memorial Act	Voice Vote	Passed	Establish restricted fee status for sacred massacre site; ban development.
S. Res. 532	En Bloc Nominations	52–47	Agreed	Confirm batch of Ambassadors, Agency heads, and Boards.
S. 390	BADGES for Native Communities	Voice Vote	Passed	Improve federal/tribal coordination on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons cases.
S. 1071	NDAA (Procedural)	75–22	Motion to Proceed	Advance the annual defense policy bill toward final passage.
S. 1437	ASCEND Act	Voice Vote	Passed	Direct NASA to acquire commercial earth remote sensing data.

---

Conclusion: A Week of Consequence

The legislative week of December 8–11, 2025, serves as a microcosm of the current American political landscape, defined by a complex interplay of ideological conflict and pragmatic cooperation.

On one hand, the House Republican majority successfully advanced a coherent ideological agenda focused on energy production, deregulation, and capital formation. The passage of the PERMIT Act and the State Planning for Reliability Act creates a clear policy contrast with the regulatory approach of the previous years, prioritizing economic speed and supply-side expansion over environmental precaution and market intervention. These bills reflect a legislative belief that the "energy transition" must not come at the cost of grid stability or infrastructure velocity.

On the other hand, the bipartisan passage of the Protect America’s Workforce Act and the Wounded Knee legislation demonstrates that specific issues—labor rights in the civil service and justice for Native communities—can still command broad consensus, defying the typical partisan entrenchment. The success of the discharge petition for H.R. 2550 is particularly noteworthy, signaling a reassertion of Congressional authority over the administrative state against executive encroachment.

As Congress heads toward the holiday recess, the Senate's final actions on the NDAA and the remaining judicial nominations will cap a year defined by the struggle to balance the demands of a rapidly evolving economy—driven by AI, energy needs, and financial innovation—with the imperatives of national security, environmental stewardship, and democratic governance. The laws passed this week, particularly regarding permitting and supply chains, will likely shape the operational landscape for American infrastructure and finance for the decade to come.

---

End of Report
Date: December 12, 2025

Works cited

1. CREC-2025-12-11-dailydigest.pdf
2. Article | House approves Republican grid bills - POLITICO Pro, accessed December 12, 2025, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/12/11/house-approves-republican-grid-bills-00687070
3. Electric Supply Chain Act (H.R. 3638) - IssueVoter, accessed December 12, 2025, https://issuevoter.org/bills/4624/hr3638-119-electric-supply-chain-act-hr-3638
4. House passes bill nullifying Trump's anti-union EOs - Government Executive, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/12/house-passes-bill-nullifying-trumps-anti-union-eos/410111/
5. House Passes NAHB-Supported PERMIT Act, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.nahb.org/blog/2025/12/house-passes-permit-act
6. Permitting Reform Bill to Cut Red Tape and Improve Project Affordability Passes House, accessed December 12, 2025, https://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=409165
7. House Passes PERMIT Act and Grid Reliability Bills | American Public Power Association, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/house-passes-permit-act-and-grid-reliability-bills
8. LETTER: LCV Urges Congress to PERMIT Act, SPEED Act, and other Anti-Environmental Legislation - League of Conservation Voters, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.lcv.org/media-center/letter-lcv-urges-congress-to-permit-act-speed-act-and-other-anti-environmental-legislation/
9. H.R. 3628, State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act | Congressional Budget Office, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61783
10. H.R. 3628 - State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act - House Rules Committee, accessed December 12, 2025, https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-3628
11. STATEMENT: NEMA Commends House on Passage of Urgent Electrical Supply Chain Legislation, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.makeitelectric.org/newsroom/news/statement-nema-commends-house-on-passage-of-urgent-electrical-supply-chain-legislation/
12. H.R. 3638 - Electric Supply Chain Act | House of Representatives Committee on Rules, accessed December 12, 2025, https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-3638
13. Bill Will Reduce Inefficiencies and Delays in Pipeline Project Reviews - Publications, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/bill-will-reduce-inefficiencies-and-delays-in-pipeline-project-reviews
14. House Passes Bipartisan Capital Formation Package: The INVEST Act, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.freewritings.law/2025/12/house-passes-bipartisan-capital-formation-package-the-invest-act/
15. ICI Commends House Passage of the INVEST Act, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.ici.org/news-release/ici-commends-house-passage-of-the-invest-act
16. Hidden Fees, Hidden Dangers: Why a House-Passed Plan Threatens Investor Protection, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.morningstar.com/funds/hidden-fees-hidden-dangers-why-house-passed-plan-threatens-investor-protection
17. House Passes Bill to Undo Trump Order to End Federal Workers' Bargaining Rights, accessed December 12, 2025, https://truthout.org/articles/house-passes-bill-to-undo-trump-order-to-end-federal-workers-bargaining-rights/
18. House Set to Vote to Restore Collective Bargaining Rights to Federal Workers - NARFE, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.narfe.org/blog/2025/11/24/house-set-to-vote-to-restore-collective-bargaining-rights-to-federal-workers/
19. Protect America's Workforce - Restore Union Rights for 1 Million Federal Workers, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.democratsabroad.org/protect_america_s_workforce_restore_union_rights_for_1_million_federal_workers
20. H.R.165 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/165
21. S. 2088 | U.S. Department of the Interior - DOI.gov, accessed December 12, 2025, https://www.doi.gov/ocl/s-2088