Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 209 (Thursday, December 11, 2025)

[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 209 (Thursday, December 11, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H5768-H5787]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROMOTING EFFICIENT REVIEW FOR MODERN INFRASTRUCTURE TODAY ACT

General Leave

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 3898.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Owens). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 936 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3898.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell)
to preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1124

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3898) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make
targeted reforms with respect to waters of the United States and other
matters, and for other purposes, with Mr. McDowell in the chair.
The CHAIR. The House is in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for the consideration of H.R. 3898, which the Clerk
will report by title.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified
in section 1 of House Resolution 936 and shall not exceed 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Scholten) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 3898, the Promoting
Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act, or the PERMIT
Act, which will make permitting processes under the Clean Water Act
more efficient, consistent, and transparent while continuing to protect
our Nation's water quality.
Our Clean Water Act permitting regime is broken.
When it takes up to 18 months to receive a permit under just the
Clean Water Act to build a pipeline, dam, road, pond, or home,
something is simply wrong.
When wastewater utilities are being sued by radical environmentalists
because the EPA didn't give them a permit they could trust, something
is wrong.
When one State can weaponize the Clean Water Act to stop a pipeline
that would allow citizens in other States to move off heating oil in
the winter to a cheaper and more reliable source of energy, for reasons
not remotely related to water quality, something is wrong.
When the Federal Government is allowed to write water quality
standards that no one can afford without passing on costs to the
ratepayers, or for which the technology to achieve such standards isn't
even available in this country, something is wrong.
I believe that regulations should be simple to understand,
achievable, and easy to follow. Good process often leads to good
decisionmaking, more consistent outcomes, and prosperity, and that is
what this bill seeks to achieve.
The partnership between the private sector, States, and the Federal
Government envisioned by the Clean Water Act has worked to improve
water quality nationwide. This is a very good thing. We all share the
goal of achieving clean water. However, 50 years after its passage, the
Clean Water Act needs modernization. It is just as simple as that.
This bill makes commonsense reforms, such as clarifying the section
401 process to stop it from being weaponized; codifying longstanding,
bipartisan exemptions from the definition of waters of the United
States; placing clear timelines on judicial review for permits; and
increasing transparency in the development of water quality standards.
It also directs the Corps to eliminate the backlog of outstanding
section 404 permit applications and jurisdictional determinations and
eliminate duplicative and unnecessary permitting processes for areas
such as pesticides, aerial fire-retardant use, and so much more.
The bottom line is that without reforming the Clean Water Act,
America cannot efficiently build roads, bridges, pipelines, ponds,
dams, levees, airports, homes, farms, and other infrastructure that we
need.
This bill acknowledges that we can both protect our natural resources
and allow for development that benefits everyone in this country.
Because of this, H.R. 3898 enjoys support from a wide range of
stakeholders, from water utilities to energy developers, the
construction industry, farmers, and Main Street businesses.
I urge my colleagues who support commonsense solutions to vote in
favor of H.R. 3898.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3898,
the PERMIT Act, but I rise for so much more than just simply to oppose
this bill.
The Clean Water Act was enacted into law 50 years ago at a time when

[[Page H5769]]

our rivers were catching fire, and the Great Lakes were declared dead.
For 50 years, we have seen our water pollution decrease because of the
efficacy of this law.
The Clean Water Act was not a perfect bill. No bill ever is. I will
be the first to admit it needs reform, but this bill is not it.

{time} 1130

Mr. Chair, while I rise today in opposition to this bill, I rise for
so much more than that. I rise for the affordability crisis that is
crippling the American Dream. This bill would shift costs from
polluters to rural America, Tribes, and disadvantaged communities.
This is personal for me. Back home in Michigan our families are
already struggling with the cost of clean water. The PERMIT Act will
exacerbate this reality and task our most vulnerable communities with
bearing the increased costs of polluters. I say let's hold the
polluters accountable.
H.R. 3898 will also put these disadvantaged communities' public
health at risk, jacking up the prices of their healthcare on top of
their utility bills. I rise for affordability.
I also rise against the increasing contamination of PFAS, toxic
forever chemicals, in our water. Communities throughout west Michigan
are working to combat PFAS contamination throughout our rivers and
streams. This bill would protect PFAS polluters who put our families in
harm's way.
The PERMIT Act will effectively place the responsibility for treating
toxic pollution, including PFAS, lead, mercury, and arsenic toward the
American taxpayer.
Mr. Chair, I also rise for States' rights. The majority is falsely
claiming that certain States are abusing their authority, their literal
States' rights, if they deny traditional energy projects in their
States.
The States of Washington and New York have provided the committee
with documents outlining that the projects they have denied would have
failed to meet the State water quality standards, violated their State
environmental policy acts, and would have adverse environmental
impacts. The GOP is ignoring that fact and weaponizing false claims to
weaken State and Tribal authority.
I thought my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were
supportive of increased State control over regulations. The PERMIT Act
would weaken the ability of States like my home State of Michigan to
pursue more rigorous protections for local waters and make our
communities more vibrant. I rise for States' rights.
Mr. Chair, I also rise for real permitting reform. We need it now
more than ever to help increase the accessibility and the flexibility
of permits that are issued for projects across the country, but not at
the expense of our clean water.
We have lost over 50 percent of our wetlands in the United States of
America. That comes at an increased cost. At a time when costs are
rising and flooding becomes more frequent, destroying just 1 acre of
wetland will increase costs by $8,000 in additional payouts by American
taxpayers through the National Flood Insurance Program. We simply
cannot afford the PERMIT Act.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins), the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee
chair and the bill's sponsor.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his leadership on
our committee and for this piece of legislation, as well as all my
colleagues who had input into this piece of legislation.
Mr. Chair, it is a great piece of commonsense legislation. I tell
folks all the time I have got more years behind me than in front of me.
One of the reasons that I came to Washington, D.C., was to make sure
that my kids and the next generation had the same opportunities that I
did when I was growing up.
This piece of legislation addresses that. It is one of many pieces,
but it addresses that with the fact that all we are doing is asking for
the Federal Government to become more efficient and more productive.
When we do that, we make life more affordable for everyone.
Mr. Chair, it just does not make common sense that it takes over 10
years to build a road out. It does not make sense when we spend over 7
years fighting for permits and fighting frivolous lawsuits with
environmentalists on a build-out plan of 2\1/2\ or 3 years.
It doesn't make common sense when an electric generating power
company wants to build a natural gas facility but they will miss the
economic growth because it takes over 10 years to get a permit to lay
the pipeline.
It doesn't make common sense when our rural communities out there are
struggling. The water treatment facilities are worn out and they are
old, but they can't participate in the economic growth that is coming
because it will take them over a decade to get a permit. That is not
just to mention the fact this bill addresses clarity for our farmers
out there or more affordable homebuilding.
Mr. Chair, I know this is not a big, sexy headline topic, but this is
an important piece of legislation. It will help improve efficiency and
productivity with our Federal Government and make sure that life is
more affordable so that these young people can get out there and chase
their version of the American Dream.
Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support this piece of
legislation. Let's get H.R. 3898 passed out of the House and sent over
to the Senate.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen), the esteemed ranking member of this committee.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Scholten
for yielding time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose the dirty water act. This bill will
make it more difficult to keep our water clean and will, ironically,
add more uncertainty to the permitting process, just the opposite of
what we need to have happen. This bill guts Federal, State, Tribal, and
local authority and resources to attain clean water and protect locally
important water bodies.
First, this bill significantly restricts Federal oversight and
regulatory authorities under the Clean Water Act. The current
administration has already acted to slash Federal funding for clean
water and eliminate agency staff. This bill compounds those efforts and
will leave Federal agencies powerless to fulfill their responsibilities
under the Clean Water Act.

Second, the bill undermines the partnership that the Federal
Government has with States and Tribes to prevent pollution, weakening
States' and Tribes' ability to better protect their own water. The
result will be more pollution in our Nation's rivers, streams, and
lakes, thanks to loopholes, legal shields, and limited oversight of
polluters.
Third, this bill will end up slowing projects by increasing
regulatory uncertainty and delay. Democrats want to pass bills that
invest in infrastructure and get projects done faster. That is why we
passed the bipartisan infrastructure law. It invested in all types of
infrastructure for communities nationwide. Fully funding projects and
the Federal agencies charged with approving them is the quickest way to
get this infrastructure built.
Instead, this bill, when paired with efforts to cut funding, as well
as other Federal water infrastructure programs, will slow down
investments in cleaner, greener, safer, and more accessible State and
local projects.
Under this bill, communities of all sizes will end up with dirtier
water and be left with the cost of cleanup. This will hurt rural
communities and minority communities. It will hurt them especially
hard, as well as other communities struggling financially under the
policies of the current administration.
This bill shifts the cost of pollution from polluters to American
families who will have to spend more for safe drinking water and access
to water-related recreational areas if such resources are even still
available.
Members of this committee on a bipartisan basis have supported
predictability in regulating clean water, and there is another way. We
don't have to choose between clean water and a robust economy. We can
have both. My State is a great example. It is defined by its clean
water, including the Puget Sound and hundreds of lakes and thousands of
miles of rivers and streams throughout Washington.

[[Page H5770]]

We all know that rivers, streams, and wetlands are intrinsically
connected. The health of the waters in my State and its water-related
economy depend upon a strong partnership with the Federal Government
and a level playing field among its upstream users and downstream
neighbors, including local Tribal communities.
During the consideration of this bill in the committee, my Democratic
colleagues offered several amendments to fix the loopholes, liability
shields, and limited oversight for polluters contained in this bill.
These amendments targeted the most egregious provisions of this bill,
not every provision of the bill.
It targeted provisions that eviscerated Federal and State clean water
agencies; provisions that made it easier for polluters to put more
toxic and cancer-causing chemicals in waters such as PFAS, arsenic, and
pesticides; and provisions that endanger not only our own health but
the health of local, regional, and State economies. These were all
defeated on party-line votes, unfortunately.
Honestly, I do look forward to the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee returning to its bipartisan work and creating effective
legislation that will upgrade our infrastructure, that will build our
economy and create jobs, all while protecting our waters.
Mr. Chair, unfortunately, the outcome of this bill, if enacted, will
be increasing pollution and contamination of our waters. I oppose this
bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

{time} 1140

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I would like to point out
that in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we can
disagree, oppose, debate, and we remain friends both within our parties
and across the aisle. I am proud of the committee for that, both the
minority and the majority side. In fact, I am very proud of that
aspect.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I, too, thank Chairman Graves for his
leadership in advancing commonsense permitting reform that cuts red
tape and restores accountability to Federal decisionmaking.
I am proud that one of our top priorities this Congress, the Water
Quality Criteria Development and Transparency Act, is included in this
package. This legislation will finally bring clarity and consistency to
the Clean Water Act permitting process by requiring the EPA to publish
clear, accessible guidance on water quality certifications.
For Utah and other Western States, where water is scarce and
infrastructure projects are critical to our growth, this reform is a
game changer. Too often, confusing, and inconsistent permitting rules
delay or derail projects that communities depend on, whether it is
water storage, energy development, or transportation.
The PERMIT Act is about delivering certainty and efficiency without
compromising environmental standards. I am proud to support it, and I
look forward to getting this across the finish line for Utahns and for
Americans across the country.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Ms. Pou).
Ms. POU. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose this bill, H.R. 3898, because it
is an affront to environmental stewardship everywhere. It undermines
the 50 years of vital, clean water progress and weakens the ability of
States like New Jersey to control pollution in its own waters.
Supporting localities in their efforts to provide clean water is one
of my top priorities as a member of the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee. I know firsthand the danger of aging stormwater, sewer,
and flood infrastructure to our environment and health.
It is unacceptable that this bill would allow polluters to release
raw or partially untreated sewage into our waters because they believe
that the water treatment technology is much too expensive.
These environmental rollbacks will only make our wealthiest polluters
richer and our riverfront communities sicker.
Stormwater infrastructure is critical. Our communities must have the
tools that they need to keep people safe.
That is why I offered an amendment to require the EPA to certify
before implementing this bill that it will not increase sewer
overflows, stormwater discharges, or flooding risks. Unfortunately, the
amendment was blocked by the House majority.
These terrible and horrible hazards endanger personal property,
businesses, local economies, critical infrastructure, and, most
importantly, human life and safety. This bill allows irreparable,
preventable damage in our communities, and I urge all of my colleagues
to vote ``no.''
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Burlison).
Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the PERMIT Act introduced by my
good friend and chairman of the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee, Congressman Mike Collins.
This bold legislation delivers a long-overdue blow to the radical
environmental agenda that has weaponized the Clean Water Act, paving
the way for critical infrastructure projects to move forward and be
free from the regulatory shackles imposed by this Washington swamp.
For too long, the Federal Government and environmental activists have
waged legal warfare on our farmers, small businesses, and job-creating
projects, causing endless delays and litigation.
Mr. Trump's vision is clear: America is building again.
My Judicial Review Timeline Clarity Act, which is included in this
vital permitting reform package, establishes a strict 60-day window to
challenge section 404 permits once the Army Corps of Engineers grants
authorization.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act exists to safeguard our waters,
not empower radical environmentalists to harass hardworking Americans
with legal hurdles years after permits are granted.
Let me be clear. The days of radical environmentalists holding our
Nation's projects hostage with their antigrowth and antijob agenda are
over.
The PERMIT Act slashes red tape, ends bureaucratic overreach, and
restores the freedom to build an America that works for its people
again.
Mr. Chair, I commend Chairman Graves and Subcommittee Chairman
Collins for their leadership in advancing this pro-growth, America
First legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the great State of Michigan (Ms. McDonald Rivet).
Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Chair, let me be clear. We need permitting
reform. Red tape and layers of bureaucracy have crippled cities working
to add housing, alternative energy sources, critical economic
development projects, and, ultimately, it gets in the way of jobs. I
concede that. It gets in the way of progress and even stops our agenda
of lowering the costs for struggling families.
I support the idea of what this bill is trying to accomplish.
However, the PERMIT Act in this current form is not the solution. It
lacks common sense and ultimately hurts middle-class and working-class
Americans.
Let's start here: The efficiency in government cannot come at the
expense of clean water and lowering costs for all Americans.
If passed as is, the PERMIT Act will increase pollution in our public
waters and strip State and Tribal rights to effectively protect their
own waters. It will also dramatically increase water bills across the
country, particularly in rural communities.
I proudly represent the city of Flint. We know devastating
consequences of a lack of oversight of water quality. Over a decade
later, my constituents are still dealing with the health and economic
fallout, and the trust in government in our home communities will never
be the same.
Efficiency is important. American industry will falter and families
will suffer if unnecessary red tape gets in the way of innovation and
building. However, as we cut red tape, we need to do so in a smart way,
not in a way that

[[Page H5771]]

will put clean water at risk, especially for the rural, Tribal, and
low-income communities who stand to lose the most because of this bill.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would prohibit the implementation of any provisions in
this bill that increase water pollution, jeopardize States' abilities
to set their own water standards, or increase water utility costs for
Americans.
This isn't radical environmentalism. This is moving forward on permit
reform with common sense.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Finstad). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in
voting for the motion to recommit.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of the amendment.
Ms. McDonald Rivet moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3898 to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith,
with the following amendment:
Page 40, after line 16, insert the following:

SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON DEPRIVING RURAL, TRIBAL, AND
ECONOMICALLY-DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES OF CLEAN
WATER.

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, and each State may not implement any amendment
made by this Act that will result in--
(1) increasing the volume, toxicity, or concentration of
pollutants in a waterbody that has been designated by a State
or an Indian Tribe for--
(A) use supplying, or supporting the supply of, public
water; or
(B) recreation;
(2) limiting the ability of the Administrator or a State to
develop and implement a water quality standard, pretreatment
requirement, or effluent limitation, solely on the basis of
cost of compliance to the discharger; or
(3) increasing the rates charged for wastewater treatment
services (including in rural, Tribal, or economically
disadvantaged communities) as a result of transferring the
cost for removing any pollutants, or treating such waterbody,
to protect the public health or welfare.

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa), who is the Western Caucus chairman.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the PERMIT Act,
which includes important provisions for my own bill, the Forest
Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act.
In the West, we live with the reality that a single spark can turn
into a forest disaster instantly, like we saw 11 months ago in Pacific
Palisades and in Altadena.
In my district, the city of Paradise is still rebuilding from the
2018 Camp fire. Every season brings the same concern as well, like the
disappearance of the towns of Greenville and Canyon Dam in Plumas
county.
We need every tool to keep ready to prevent a new, small fire from
turning into the next catastrophe. One of the most important tools we
have, that the Forest Service relies on, is the use of aerial fire
retardant, that pinkish red stuff you see coming out of the DC-10s and
many other aircraft. It effectively slows the spread of fast-moving
fires and gives the hand crews and trucks on the ground a chance to get
control. However, a lawsuit by an environmental group claimed the
Forest Service can't use this retardant without a Clean Water Act
permit, even though it has used it for dozens of years very
successfully.
A judge agreed, and now that group is working to block the use of
this retardant altogether while the Forest Service waits for permits to
grind through an EPA process. Thankfully, a temporary stay on the
lawsuit didn't take this critical tool away starting 2 years ago.
Mr. Chair, 47 States have delegated authority under the Clean Water
Act. That means that even after the EPA issues a permit, those States,
including my home of California, would have to issue their own permits.
This would create a maze of different requirements and bog down the
Forest Service in red tape at the exact moment when speed matters.

{time} 1150

My bill fixes that.
The Clean Water Act already recognizes the difference between
fighting fires and causing pollution. My bill ensures that the aerial
fire retardant, which is already subject to strict Forest Service
rules, is treated the same way as runoff from other fire control
activities, so our firefighters aren't stuck waiting on paperwork and
permit approvals when lives and towns are in harm's way.
We have seen what happens when delays allow fires to get ahead of us.
California alone has lost over 13.5 million acres in the last decade.
We can't afford to tie the hands of the people trying to stop these
fires. I urge passage. Please vote for the PERMIT Act.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the great State of California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R.
3898.
Clean water used to be something we all agreed upon. The Clean Water
Act was originally passed by an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority
because we understood that clean water is not a luxury. It is really a
basic right. Now, Republicans in this Chamber are doing everything they
can to roll back and repeal what is left of the Clean Water Act.
Among the many disastrous provisions in this bill, the PERMIT Act
would give President Trump the authority to declare any body of water
exempt from Clean Water Act protections. It is just a stunning betrayal
of the American people.
Outside these walls, Americans overwhelmingly support the Clean Water
Act. Survey after survey has found that Americans believe the
government should do more to protect our lakes, rivers, and streams,
not less.
This should not be a hard vote. I urge my colleagues to protect clean
water and urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3898.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 19\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Graves and Chairman Collins
for their hard work on this pragmatic and effective piece of
legislation.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act, which would cut
red tape within the Clean Water Act's permitting processes. This
legislation will provide much-needed regulatory certainty for America's
farmers, small businesses, manufacturers, home and road builders, and
many other permit holders.
My colleagues across the aisle continue to promote the fallacy that
improving permitting processes comes at the expense of the environment.
Congress can continue to be good stewards of our environment while also
removing regulations and processes that do not protect the environment
but rather create obstacles that prevent economic growth and prosperity
in Ohio and across the country.
Among these provisions, the PERMIT Act makes commonsense reforms to
the Clean Water Act permitting process that will continue to protect
our Nation's water resources. These reforms increase transparency and
provide clarity and consistency for permit holders so they can maintain
compliance with the law and provide reasonable guardrails to prevent
the weaponization of these permitting processes.
In particular, I am proud that my bill, the Confidence in Clean Water
Permits Act, is included in the underlying legislation. My bill
provides reasonable protections for National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit holders against frivolous lawsuits if they
are acting in good faith and within the scope of their permits. Permit
holders who are in compliance with these permits, and who often provide
well-paying jobs to Americans, should not be punished with frivolous
lawsuits when they comply with the terms of their permits.
I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the PERMIT Act to
provide regulatory relief and certainty under the Clean Water Act for
businesses in Ohio and across the Nation.

[[Page H5772]]

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just need to say that I agree with so much of what my colleague
said about the need for real permitting reform, but that is not this
bill. The PERMIT Act is nothing more than a dirty water bill dressed up
in a fancy name.
We need to come back to the table, reject this bill, and pass real
and meaningful permitting reform that will not pass the cost of
polluted waters on to vulnerable, rural, and Tribal communities. Let's
come back to the drawing board and reject the PERMIT Act.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the PERMIT
Act, Republicans' latest attempt to help corporate polluters dodge
responsibility.
This alarming bill would weaken the Army Corps' permitting process
and EPA's Clean Water Act authorities, threatening my district, where
the Clean Water Act protects our waters, our salmon, and our people.
Moreover, this bill would impose an unworkably short 60-day review of
dredge-and-fill permits. Two months is simply not enough time for
underresourced communities to understand the effects that a project
could have, let alone to mount any meaningful opposition to protect
themselves.
Access to judicial review ensures that communities, Tribes, and local
governments can challenge decisions and raise potential harms that have
not yet been considered. Without it, agency actions just go completely
unchecked.
This legislation prioritizes polluters over people's clean water and
public health, and it especially puts all the harms disproportionately
on our low-income and rural constituents and our communities of color.
They deserve so much better. They deserve our support, rather than
throwing them under the bus.

Our permitting systems do need to be improved, and we have found a
way in our State to do that. This is a false solution that attacks
essential clean water safeguards and undermines access to our courts.
I oppose it, and I hope, as the ranking member said, that we can come
back and do real permitting reform that doesn't throw communities under
the bus and protects our waters.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Shreve).
Mr. SHREVE. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding. I
appreciate the time, and I appreciate my colleague Mike Collins' work
on this commonsense package of clean water reforms.
I am grateful that my bill, H.R. 3934, the Water Quality Standards
Attainability Act, is included. My bill serves to maintain State and
local leadership in setting their water quality standards under the
Clean Water Act.
Let me cite a compelling example of why this legislation is
necessary. In 2020, the EPA approved in Indianapolis, in my district,
new standards for stormwater management. These updates were an aid to
ensure that Hoosiers had access to clean water and that our localities
were able to deliver on this responsibility. In early '24, under the
Biden EPA, this approval was revoked for the infrastructure updates
that were already well underway, costing our taxpayers needless
millions.
This unpredictability has been a practice of our Federal Government
for too long. It is time our local governments and taxpayers have the
transparency and certainty with which to cost-effectively invest in our
infrastructure.
My legislation will ensure that the regulatory whiplash is in our
rearview mirror. My bill will ensure that when States write their
rules, they consider affordability and accessibility to water treatment
technologies.
Through this legislation, we are providing certainty and
predictability in the EPA approval process and a little Hoosier common
sense in delivery. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth).
Ms. ELFRETH. Mr. Chair, 2.8 million acres of farmland protected;
35,000 miles of fish passages opened; nearly 1,500 new public water
access sites established; upgrades to every large wastewater treatment
plant in the watershed to improve water quality; and the largest oyster
reef restoration in the world: These are just five of the biggest wins
in the last 43 years of the landmark Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement. In fact, it was just updated last week after years of
careful and difficult negotiation and public input to unite States
across the bay to think bigger and bolder to restore the beloved
watershed we all share.

{time} 1200

We know that water does not adhere to arbitrary political boundaries.
Pollution in Pennsylvania will and does flow downstream to Maryland and
Virginia.
All States rely on the EPA to conduct oversight and enforcement of
pollution entering our waterways and to hold everyone accountable to
our shared communities.
Yet, the bill before us today, the PERMIT Act, attempts to dismantle
this partnership between States and the EPA by watering down the key
enforcement mechanisms that are needed to ensure compliance with
evidence-based pollution standards.
I know these bipartisan, multistate partnerships are not easy. I was
a part of them before I joined this Chamber. They take years of
collaboration.
Mr. Chairman, that should be fostered and not dismantled by this and
future Congresses, which is why I urge my colleagues to support this
decades-long partnership by voting ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3898, the
PERMIT Act.
Our permitting system is a great burden to our Nation. Permitting
delays infrastructure projects indefinitely and stops us from bringing
critical energy sources online. It also deters investment in our
communities. Make no mistake: Permitting is holding back America.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 3898, the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern
Infrastructure Today Act, also known as the PERMIT Act, aims to unleash
the American economy. It is a package of commonsense reforms that will
reduce regulatory burdens, establish certainty, and increase
transparency in our permitting system.
This bill will, in turn, create opportunities for homebuilders, our
farmers, loggers, and our small business owners. It will entice them to
invest in projects that help our local communities grow.
Mr. Chair, I will highlight section 12 of H.R. 3898. Section 12 is
the language of my bill, the Reducing Permitting Uncertainty Act.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to veto a
dredge-and-fill permit. However, under Biden, the EPA took it upon
itself to proactively reject permits and retroactively take away
permits.
In a country of due process, it is absurd that a government can
dictate whether a project is good or bad even before an application is
filed. The fact that the government can waltz in and shut down years of
hard work is staggering.
This section of H.R. 3898 is not a dramatic departure from the status
quo. It clarifies timelines and brings certainty. When an application
is pending, the EPA can determine whether or not to veto. It is simple.
It does not alter the process, nor does it deprive the EPA of its
right to veto. It returns our process to one based on science and facts
rather than politics.
Mr. Chair, I thank Congressman Collins for his efforts on this
package of reforms, and I look forward to supporting it.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, again, you will hear no argument from me about the need
for permitting reform.
We do need reform, but this bill is not what we need. It doesn't just
cut red tape. It cuts all of the tape that has protected our clean
water for 50 years since the Clean Water Act was signed into law.
The reason we don't have horror stories of rivers catching on fire
and the Great Lakes being declared dead is because of the protection
that the Clean

[[Page H5773]]

Water Act has provided. Despite dramatic population growth, the number
of waters meeting water quality standards has doubled since the CWA's
passage in 1972.
Mr. Chairman, I will be the first to admit that we need reform of our
permitting process, but this dirty water bill is not it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, our waterways and our waters are precious resources,
and we need to advance policies that protect that precious resource and
certainly need policies that enable us to be resourceful in the use of
this commodity.
In my youth, growing up in my home and hometown of Amsterdam, New
York, if you wanted to know what color the Mohawk Carpet Mills were
dying their carpets that day, all you had to do was look at the flow of
the Chuctanunda Creek as it emptied into the Mohawk River.
With the passage of the Clean Water Act, Congress took historic
action to protect public health and improve the quality of drinking
water across our great country.
Our rivers, our brooks, and our streams are the center of our
communities, and we have come so far to protect and strengthen these
resources for the generations that will follow.
Instead of strengthening our waterways, this bill that we are
debating today on the House floor is a wholesale attack on what is left
of the Clean Water Act. It is a one-two punch that would allow more
forever chemicals and harmful pollutants to be discharged into our
waterways with little regulation, while diluting the ability for States
and Tribes to take action to protect their communities.
I continue to believe that there is a genuine interest in Congress on
both sides of the aisle to advance durable, bipartisan solutions to
meet our Nation's energy demands, to create good jobs, and to safeguard
our communities and environment.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my Republican colleagues to focus on real
solutions instead of giveaways to polluters. This special interest
crowd that is getting different treatment to pollute and not respect
our resources has got to stop.
Mr. Chair, I urge Members to please oppose this bill.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Patronis).
Mr. PATRONIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Aaron Bean, for
introducing this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, after working hard to obtain Federal approval in the
first Trump administration, a weaponized court system pulled Florida's
404 permitting out from under us, even though our program was
thoroughly vetted and approved in 2020.
Florida's DEP has become a national model for environmental
protection, and Washington should be learning from us, not tying our
hands.
The amendment makes it clear that once a State assumption program is
approved, the EPA cannot withdraw it unless Congress explicitly says
so--no more regulatory whiplash, no more political games.
For Florida, this is critical. It protects our section 404 program,
and it ends the uncertainty caused by conflicting court rulings and
shifting interpretations in Washington.
Meanwhile, the Army Corps of Engineers got a gut punch with an
overwhelming caseload while working hard to try to solve dozens of
projects that an activist judge has placed on hold in our communities
that they desperately need, like stormwater, schools, and even sewer
treatment plants not under construction, protecting our most precious
environments. But we can't unless the permits can be issued.
This is about predictability, federalism, and letting the States
manage their own waterways. It is proinfrastructure, prodevelopment,
but, most importantly, it is proenvironmental protection.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Chairman, we know that the dirty water bill reduces
significant oversight for the Clean Water Act, and it is really
important to know that polluters are pushing to weaken this--not
residents, not families, and not communities that are directly
impacted.
This is about discharging toxic chemicals into our water bodies. I
want Members to understand that last year, Congress rejected--again,
Congress rejected last year many of the changes being proposed now in
the PERMIT Act because it had damaging impacts to the health of
families, the economy, and our environment.
Mr. Chairman, it is not just this bill. This week, Republicans are
voting now on five dirty energy bills that attack communities I
represent. These bills boost dirty energy power plants even as energy
companies are transitioning toward cleaner energy.
Dirty energy plants have historically been located in communities
that look like mine, in rural communities and minority communities. In
Michigan, we already know that certain communities are facing a
disproportionate burden from electricity generation.
Just ask the residents of southwest Detroit and the Downriver region
in Michigan. They have felt the harm and seen the harm, and they lived
the experience of being next to DTE's oil-fired power plant that made
them sick.
Mr. Chairman, it is immoral, and Congress must fix it. Yet, many of
the pro-polluting Republicans in this Chamber want to talk about making
electricity with ``reliable generation facilities,'' when they really
are talking about more expensive dirty energy.
There is nothing ``reliable'' about air pollution giving our children
asthma. Children not only have the right to be able to not go hungry,
but they have a right to breathe clean air. The only thing folks can
rely on right now with these plants is getting sicker.

{time} 1210

I proposed two amendments this week, Mr. Chair, to protect our
communities, but they were rejected. They would have made sure that we
have full information and transparency on the disparate impacts and
cumulative impacts on minority, rural, disadvantaged, and Tribal
communities and would have added safeguards, safeguards that would have
been able to define what real reliable generation facilities are.
Again, they were not interested. Why? It is because we know that
clean water and clean air is never a priority. It is always going to be
about profits for corporate, polluting donors. If you want reliable
generation facilities, make them clean so they are not actively
poisoning our neighbors, destroying our communities, and making them
less attractive places to live, work, and invest.
I promise, if you go to your community and ask them about this dirty
water permit bill that you guys are pushing for, as well as what was
passed with the energy bills, overwhelmingly, across party lines, they
will tell you to protect our land, our soil, our water, our
environment, and our health.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hurd).
Mr. HURD of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to cosponsor the
PERMIT Act, commonsense legislation to help America build the
infrastructure we need faster and more responsibly.
I am especially grateful that my bill, the Jurisdictional
Determination Backlog Reduction Act, is included as a part of this
package. Across the country, Americans depend on timely answers from
the Army Corps so they know whether their projects require Clean Water
Act permits, but the Corps is not keeping up. Right now, thousands of
determinations and wetland delineations are stuck in a backlog, leaving
projects in limbo.
My proposal directs the Corps to clear this backlog so that
landowners and builders get the determinations and clarity they need to
move forward in a timely and responsible way.
I thank Chairman Graves, Chairman Collins, and the Water Resources
and Environment Subcommittee staff for their work putting together a
bill that cuts red tape, reduces duplicative reviews, and gives
farmers, ranchers, utilities, and communities in Colorado and across
the country the regulatory certainty that they need to build.
I look forward to advancing this important legislation.

[[Page H5774]]

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. DesJarlais). The gentlewoman from Michigan has
7 minutes remaining.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the PERMIT Act.
For over 50 years, the Clean Water Act has protected rivers, streams,
and wetlands that our communities rely on. This bill undermines these
protections by shielding polluters from responsibility for toxic waste
like PFAS, lead, mercury, and arsenic, and by limiting Federal review
and community input when drinking water is at risk.
I filed three straightforward amendments to protect public health:
One to require cumulative impacts and groundwater reviews for projects
near community drinking water aquifers, like the one that supplies
Memphis; a second one to restore oversight and public participation for
nationwide permits, protections that would have prevented the Byhalia
pipeline from being rushed through my district; and a third one to
require the EPA to certify that this bill will not increase exposure to
harmful contaminants.
Unfortunately, none were made in order. Therefore, I oppose the bill
and urge a ``no'' vote.
Permitting reform should not come at the expense of children's and
seniors' health, clean drinking water, or communities with a history of
industrial exposure. I do this because of a commitment to the safety of
the people.
Looking at my dear friend, Mr. Graves, I hate to speak against one of
his bills because he was such a good ally when I was on Transportation,
and I have great respect for him, but nevertheless I am against the
bill.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, listening to our friends on the other side
of the aisle reminds me of what one of my favorite Presidents of the
United States said, Mr. Reagan. He said: You know, our friends on the
other side of the aisle, they know so much that just isn't so.
Mr. Chair, I am proud to support this much-needed effort to modernize
our Nation's water permitting system. I thank Chairman Graves, Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Collins, and many
members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who have
worked to develop this package.
I also appreciate the inclusion of three bills that I authored: The
Nationwide Permitting Improvement Act, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act, and the Improving Water Quality Certifications and American Energy
Infrastructure Act.
Each addresses well-documented breakdowns in our Nation's permitting
process which delay critical projects, drive up costs, and do nothing
to actually improve water quality.
The Nationwide Permitting Improvement Act narrows the scope of the
Clean Water Act section 401 certifications to actual water quality
impacts and establishes timelines and procedural guardrails of State-
level review to prevent misuse and delay.
The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act removes the need for duplicative
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for pesticide
use if the pesticide is already EPA approved and used according to
label requirements, which will reduce costs without weakening
environmental protections.
Finally, the Improving Water Quality Certifications and American
Energy Infrastructure Act codifies the historic nationwide permit
process under section 404, extends permit validity to 10 years, and
clarifies jurisdiction over dredge-and-fill discharges, providing
predictability for infrastructure and energy developers.
Together, the enactment of all these bills will result in clear rules
and predictable timelines that will cut costs and promote economic
growth while maintaining environmental protections. That is how you
battle inflation.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Congressional Record a list of over 180
conservation, recreation, hunting, fishing, environmental, Tribal, and
State organizations that oppose the PERMIT Act.

189 Organizations Opposed to Provisions in H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act

Adirondack Council, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Alliance for
Appalachia, Alliance for Sustainability, American Fisheries
Society, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, American
Rivers Action Fund, American Sustainable Business Network,
American Whitewater, Appalachian Citizens' Law Center,
Arkansas Wildlife Federation, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers,
Bayou City Waterkeeper, Beaverdam Creek Watershed Watch
Group, Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Black-Sampit Riverkeeper,
Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, Businesses for Bristol Bay,
California Environmental Voters, Californians for Weston
Wilderness.
CalWild, Center for Biological Diversity, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, Chesapeake Legal Alliance, Children's
Environmental Health Network, Chispa Arizona, Citizens Action
Coalition of IN, Citizens Campaign for the Environment,
Citizens to Conserve and Restore Indian Creek, City of
Goshen, Indiana, Stormwater Department, Clean Water Action,
Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin, Climate
Justice Alliance, Commercial Fisherman for Bristol Bay,
Committee on the Middle Fork Vermilion River, Community Water
Center, Connecticut League of Conselvation Voters,
Connecticut River Conservancy, Conservation Alabama,
Conservation Coalition of Oklahoma.
Conservation Council for Hawai'i, Conservation Federation
of Missouri, Conservation Law Center, Conservation Northwest,
Conservation Society of San Antonio, Conservation Voters New
Mexico, Conservation Voters of PA, Crawford Stewardship
Project, Delaware Nature Society, Delaware-Otsego Audubon
Society, Earth Charter Indiana, Earthjustice Action, Eastern
PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine, Reclamation (EPCAMR),
Elkhart River Restoration Association, Endangered Habitats
League, Environmental Advocates NY, Environmental Defenders
of McHenly County, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental
Integrity Project, Environmental Law & Policy Center,
Environmental League of Massachusetts, Environmental Working
Group, Eureka Recycling, Flow Water Advocates, Food & Water
Watch, Freshwater Future, Friends of Bell Smith Springs,
Friends of the Boundary Water Wilderness, Friends of the Fox
River, Friends of the Mississippi River, Friends of the
Rouge, Georgia Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes Business
Network, Great Lakes Odyssey Radio Hour, Greater Edwards
Aquifer Alliance, GreenLatinos, Hays Residents For Land and
Water Protection, Hip Hop Caucus, Holy Spirit Missionary
Sisters, USA-JPIC, Hoosier Environmental Council, Huron
Pines, Huron River Watershed Council, Hydropower Reform
Coalition (HRC), Illinois Division lzaak Walton League of
America, Illinois Environmental Council, Indiana Conservation
Voters, Indiana Forest Alliance, Indiana Retired Teachers
Association, Indiana Sportsmens Roundtable, Indiana Wildlife
Federation.
Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Wildlife Federation, lzaak
Walton League of America, lzaak Walton League of America-
National Great, Lakes Committee, Izaak Walton League, Ohio
Division, Just Transition Northwest Indiana, Kentucky
Resources Council, Kentucky Waterways Alliance, Labadie
Environmental Organization (LEO), Lake Erie Advocates, League
of Conservation Voters, Llano River Watershed Alliance, Maine
Conservation Voters, Market Square Presbyterian Church,
Harrisburg, PA, Maryland Nonprofits, Massachusetts Rivers
Alliance, Michigan City Sustainability Commission, Michigan
Climate Action Network, Michigan League of Conservation
Voters, Mill Creek Alliance, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Milwaukee
Water Commons, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy,
Minnesota Division Izaak Walton League of America.
Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Minnesota Trout
Unlimited, Montana Wildlife Federation, MS Communities United
for Prosperity (MCUP), N.C. Coastal Federation, National
Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation Association,
National Wildlife Federation, Native American Rights Fund,
Natural Resources Council of Maine, Natural Resources Defense
Council, NC League of Conservation Voters, Nebraska Wildlife
Federation, Nevada Conservation League, Nevada Wildlife
Federation, New Hampshire Audubon, New Jersey League of
Conservation Voters, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, New York
Department of Environmental Conservation, Next 100 Coalition,
North Carolina Wildlife Federation, North Dakota Wildlife
Federation, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, NY/NJ
Baykeeper, Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio River Foundation,
One Mississippi, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Oregon League of Conservation Voters, Parable of the Sower
Healing Center (Intentional Community Cooperative), Park
Watershed, Partners for Clean Streams, Planning and
Conservation League, Prairie Rivers Network, Restore
America's Estuaries, River Alliance of Wisconsin,
Riverkeeper, SalmonState, Save Our Water, Save the Dunes,
Sierra Club, Socially Responsible Agriculture Project,
Sociedad Ornitologica Puertorriquena, Inc, South Dakota
Wildlife Federation, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council,
Southern Environmental Law Center, Texas Conservation
Alliance, The Alaska Center, The Alliance for

[[Page H5775]]

Appalachia, The Land Conservancy of McHenry County,The
Michigan Forest Association, Town of Clermont, Trout
Unlimited, United Tribes of Bristol Bay, Universal Access to
Clean Water for Tribal Communities, Upper Sugar River
Watershed Association, Upstream Pgh, Valley Sewardship
Network, Vermnont Natural Resources Council, Virginia
Conservation Network, Virginia League of Conservation Voters,
Washington Conselvation Action, Washington State Department
of Ecology, Waterkeeper Alliance, Waterkeepers Chesapeake,
WaterLegacy, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, West Virginia
Rivers Coalition, Wetlands Watch, Wild Salmon Center,
Wildlife for All, Winyah Rivers Alliance, Wisconsin
Conservation Voters, Wyoming Wilderness Association.

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, we must think carefully before we act today
about what will be lost when the PERMIT Act is signed into law. As I
stated throughout our proceedings today, I agree, we need permitting
reform, but this bill is not it.
We can come back to the table and come up with solutions that will do
both: enhance the speed, clarity, and efficacy with which we issue
permits in the United States of America without polluting our water.
We have to think about the 50 percent of wetlands that have been
lost, the over 70 percent of rivers and streams that are losing their
protections and could join that 50 percent in being lost forever.
As an avid outdoorswoman who loves to hunt and fish--our entire
family is four-season anglers throughout the great State of Michigan--I
urge my colleagues to think carefully about what we will be losing.
We can come together and advocate for meaningful permitting reform.
We need staff to administer permits. The current administration cannot
gut Federal agencies on one hand and claim to want speedy Federal
processes on the other.
The Army Corps' three senior-most experts have left the agency, as
well as an additional 15 to 30 percent of the regulatory staff. This
has impacted west Michigan in particular, as we have seen firsthand
additional delays under this administration in permitting from the Army
Corps.
The PERMIT Act simply directs the Corps and EPA to rewrite Federal
rules, again stoking even more uncertainty. My Democratic colleagues
and I agree that we need to issue permits more expeditiously in this
country. We can do that while not giving up access to clean water.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, in closing, H.R. 3898 is critical to
achieving more efficient, predictable, and useful permitting for many
important projects by streamlining and improving the Clean Water Act's
permitting process.
As has been stated, H.R. 3898 will support everyday Americans in
every district across this Nation by making commonsense reforms to the
Clean Water Act, unleashing America's ability to increase transparency
in the development of water quality standards.

{time} 1220

It also directs the Corps to eliminate the backlog of outstanding
section 404 permit applications and jurisdictional determinations,
eliminates duplicative, unnecessary permitting processes for areas such
as pesticide in aerial fire retardant use, and so much more.
The bottom line is, we cannot effectively build roads, bridges,
pipelines, ports, dams, levies, airports, homes, farms, and many, many
other important infrastructure projects.
This bill is a product of hard work by many members of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure. In particular, I thank
Representatives Rick Crawford, David Rouzer, Doug LaMalfa, Pete
Stauber, Dusty Johnson, Burgess Owens, Eric Burlison, Jeff Hurd,
Jefferson Shreve, Dave Taylor, and Jimmy Patronis, who all contributed
provisions to this bill.
I especially thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mike Collins,
for working with me on this. He has shown extraordinary leadership in
developing this very important issue. I do thank the gentlewoman from
Michigan for her friendship in this process, and I would urge support
for the bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill, as amended, shall be considered for
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, printed in the bill, is
adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 3898

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Promoting
Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act'' or the
``PERMIT Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Water quality standards attainability.
Sec. 3. Water quality criteria development and transparency.
Sec. 4. Water quality technology availability.
Sec. 5. Improving water quality certifications and American energy
infrastructure.
Sec. 6. Clarifying Federal general permits.
Sec. 7. NPDES permit terms.
Sec. 8. Confidence in clean water permits.
Sec. 9. Forest protection and wildland firefighter safety.
Sec. 10. Agricultural stormwater discharge.
Sec. 11. Reducing regulatory burdens.
Sec. 12. Reducing permitting uncertainty.
Sec. 13. Nationwide permitting improvement.
Sec. 14. Deadline for request for submission of additional information
for permit programs for dredged or fill material.
Sec. 15. Judicial review timeline clarity.
Sec. 16. Restoring federalism in clean water permitting.
Sec. 17. Jurisdictional determination backlog reduction.
Sec. 18. Definition of navigable waters.
Sec. 19. Applicability of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
rule.
Sec. 20. Coordination with Federal Permitting Improvement Steering
Council.
Sec. 21. Sense of Congress on Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

SEC. 2. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ATTAINABILITY.

(a) State Water Quality Standards.--Section 303(c) (33
U.S.C. 1313(c)) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``The Governor of a State'' and inserting
``(A) The Governor of a State''; and
(B) by striking ``Results of such review shall be made
available to the Administrator.'' and inserting the
following:
``(B) Reviews under this paragraph shall include review,
for purposes of ensuring that combined sewer overflow
controls are cost effective, of any water quality standard
applicable to a body of water into which, pursuant to a
permit, order, or decree issued pursuant to this Act, a
municipal combined storm and sanitary sewer discharges.
``(C) Results of each review under this paragraph shall be
made available to the Administrator.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(A) by inserting ``(i)'' before ``their use and value for
public water supplies'';
(B) by striking ``, and also taking into consideration''
and inserting ``; (ii)''; and
(C) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``; and (iii) the cost and commercial availability
in the United States of treatment technologies (including
whether the technologies have been demonstrated at an
applicable scale) that may be required to be applied to point
sources in order to result in compliance with such
standards''.
(b) State Water Quality Criteria.--Section 304(a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) Consideration of treatment technologies.--In
developing or revising water quality criteria under this
subsection, the Administrator shall take into consideration
the cost and commercial availability in the United States of
treatment technologies (including whether the technologies
have been demonstrated at an applicable scale) that may be
required to be applied to point sources in order to result in
compliance with water quality standards adopted or
promulgated under section 303.''.

SEC. 3. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPARENCY.

(a) Information and Guidelines.--Section 304(a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(11) Administrative procedure.--After the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall issue
any new or revised water quality criteria under paragraph (1)
or (9) by rule.''.
(b) Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review.--Section
509(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1369(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``section 402, and'' and inserting
``section 402,''; and
(2) by inserting ``and (H) in issuing any criteria for
water quality pursuant to section 304(a)(11),'' after
``strategy under section 304(l),''.

[[Page H5776]]

SEC. 4. WATER QUALITY TECHNOLOGY AVAILABILITY.

Section 304(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``the commercial
availability in the United States of the technology
(including whether the technology has been demonstrated at an
applicable scale),'' before ``and such other factors'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``the commercial
availability in the United States of the technology
(including whether the technology has been demonstrated at an
applicable scale),'' before ``and such other factors''; and
(3) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting ``the commercial
availability in the United States of the technology
(including whether the technology has been demonstrated at an
applicable scale),'' before ``and such other factors''.

SEC. 5. IMPROVING WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATIONS AND AMERICAN
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE.

Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1341) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``may result'' and
inserting ``may directly result'';
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``activity'' and
inserting ``discharge'';
(iii) in the third sentence, by striking ``applications''
each place it appears and inserting ``requests'';
(iv) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``act on a request
for certification, within a reasonable period of time (which
shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the
certification requirements of this subsection'' and inserting
``grant the request for certification with or without
conditions, deny the request for certification, or waive the
requirement for certification under this subsection with
respect to such Federal application, within a reasonable
period of time to be determined by the licensing or
permitting agency (which shall not exceed one year) after
receipt of such request, the requirement for certification
under this subsection'';
(v) in the sixth sentence, by striking ``waived as provided
in the preceding sentence'' and inserting ``waived under this
paragraph''; and
(vi) by inserting after the fourth sentence the following:
``Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of the
PERMIT Act, each State and interstate agency that has
authority to give such a certification, and the
Administrator, shall publish requirements for certification
to demonstrate to such State, such interstate agency, or the
Administrator, as the case may be, compliance with the
applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and
307. A decision to grant or deny a request for certification
shall be based only on compliance with the applicable
provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307, and the
grounds for the decision shall be set forth in writing and
provided to the applicant. Not later than 90 days after
receipt of a request for certification, the State, interstate
agency, or Administrator, as the case may be, shall identify
in writing all specific additional materials or information
necessary for the request for certification to be complete,
as described in subsection (g). The State, interstate agency,
or the Administrator, as the case may be, may grant a request
for certification with or without conditions, deny a request
for certification, or waive the requirement for certification
under this subsection with respect to such Federal
application.'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the second sentence, by striking ``notice of
application for such Federal license or permit'' and
inserting ``receipt of a notice under the preceding
sentence'';
(ii) in the third sentence--

(I) by striking ``any water quality requirement in such
State'' and inserting ``any water quality standard in effect
for the State under section 303''; and
(II) by inserting before the period ``at a time that is
agreed to by such State and the applicant'';

(iii) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``insure
compliance with applicable water quality requirements.'' and
inserting ``ensure compliance with the applicable provisions
of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307.'';
(iv) in the final sentence, by striking ``insure'' and
inserting ``ensure'';
(v) by striking the first sentence and inserting ``On
receipt of a request for certification, the certifying State
or interstate agency, as applicable, shall immediately notify
the Administrator of the request.''; and
(vi) by inserting after the second sentence the following:
``If the Administrator determines under the preceding
sentence that such a discharge will not affect the waters of
any other State, no such notification is required.'';
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``there will be
compliance'' and inserting ``any such discharge will
comply''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``section'' and
inserting ``any applicable provision of section'';
(D) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in the first sentence--

(I) by inserting ``directly'' before ``result in any
discharge''; and
(II) by striking ``applicable effluent limitations or other
limitations or other applicable water quality requirements
will not be violated'' and inserting ``no applicable
provision of section 301, 302, 303, 306, or 307 will be
violated'';

(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``will violate
applicable effluent limitations or other limitations or other
water quality requirements'' and inserting ``will directly
result in a discharge that violates an applicable provision
of section 301, 302, 303, 306, or 307,''; and
(iii) in the third sentence, by striking ``such facility or
activity will not violate the applicable provisions'' and
inserting ``operation of such facility or activity will not
directly result in a discharge that violates any applicable
provision''; and
(E) in paragraph (5), by striking ``the applicable
provisions'' and inserting ``any applicable provision'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``Nothing in this
section'' and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection
(e), nothing in this section'';
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``applicant for a
Federal license or permit will comply with any applicable
effluent limitations and other limitations, under section 301
or 302 of this Act, standard of performance under section 306
of this Act, or prohibition, effluent standard, or
pretreatment standard under section 307 of this Act, and with
any other appropriate requirement of State law set forth in
such certification, and shall become a condition on any
Federal license or permit subject to the provisions of this
section'' and inserting ``discharge subject to this section
will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301,
302, 303, 306, and 307, and any such limitations or
requirements shall be imposed by the licensing or permitting
agency as a condition on any Federal license or permit
subject to the provisions of this section''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Notwithstanding section 505, any condition imposed on
a Federal license or permit by a licensing or permitting
agency under this section may be enforced only by such
licensing or permitting agency.
``(f) For purposes of this section, the applicable
provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 are any
applicable effluent limitations and other limitations under
section 301 or 302, any water quality standard in effect for
a State under section 303, any standard of performance under
section 306, and any prohibition, effluent standard, or
pretreatment standard under section 307.
``(g) A request for certification under this section shall
be made in writing to the State, interstate agency, or
Administrator, as the case may be. A complete request for
certification shall consist of the following:
``(1) Identification of each applicant for the Federal
license or permit with respect to which the certification is
requested.
``(2) A statement that information included in the request
for certification is truthful, accurate, and complete, to the
best knowledge of each such applicant.
``(3) In the case of a request for certification with
respect to an individual permit or license--
``(A) identification of the Federal license or permit that
is the subject of the application with respect to which the
certification is requested;
``(B) identification of any activity the conduct of which
is subject to such Federal license or permit;
``(C) identification of the location and nature of any
discharge that may directly result from such activity, and
the location of the receiving waters;
``(D) a description of means that may be used to monitor,
control, or manage any such discharge; and
``(E) a list of all other Federal, interstate, Tribal,
State, or local agency authorizations required for the
conduct of such activity, and any approval or denial of such
an authorization already received.
``(4) In the case of a request for certification with
respect to the issuance of a general license or general
permit--
``(A) identification of the proposed categories of
activities to be covered by the general license or general
permit for which certification is requested;
``(B) a description of the proposed general license or
general permit, which may include a draft of the proposed
general license or permit; and
``(C) an estimate of the number of discharges expected to
result from the proposed general license or general permit
annually.''.

SEC. 6. CLARIFYING FEDERAL GENERAL PERMITS.

Section 402(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1342(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) General permits.--
``(A) Permits authorized.--The Administrator may issue
general permits under this section on a State, regional, or
nationwide basis, or for a delineated area, for discharges
associated with any category of activities, which discharges
are of similar types and from similar sources.
``(B) Permit expiration notification requirement.--If a
general permit issued under this section will expire and the
Administrator decides not to issue a new general permit for
discharges similar to those covered by the expiring general
permit, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal
Register a notice of such decision at least two years prior
to the expiration of the general permit.
``(C) Application of permit terms of an expired permit.--
``(i) In general.--If a general permit issued under this
section expires and the Administrator has not published a
notice in accordance with subparagraph (B), the Administrator
shall, until the date described in clause (ii)--

``(I) continue to apply the terms, conditions, and
requirements of the expired general permit to any discharge
that was covered by the expired general permit; and
``(II) apply such terms, conditions, and requirements to
any discharge that would have been covered by the expired
general permit (in accordance with any relevant requirements
for such coverage) if the discharge had occurred before such
expiration.

``(ii) Date described.--The date described in this clause
is the earlier of--

``(I) the date on which the Administrator issues a new
general permit for discharges similar to those covered by the
expired general permit; or

[[Page H5777]]

``(II) the date that is two years after the date on which
the Administrator publishes in the Federal Register a notice
of a decision not to issue a new general permit for
discharges similar to those covered by the expired general
permit.''.

SEC. 7. NPDES PERMIT TERMS.

Section 402(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``five
years'' and inserting ``ten years''.

SEC. 8. CONFIDENCE IN CLEAN WATER PERMITS.

(a) Compliance With Permits.--Section 402(k) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(k)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(k) Compliance with'' and inserting the
following:
``(k) Compliance With Permits.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), compliance
with''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Scope.--For purposes of paragraph (1), compliance
with the conditions of a permit issued under this section
shall be considered compliance with respect to a discharge
of--
``(A) any pollutant for which an effluent limitation is
included in the permit; and
``(B) any pollutant for which an effluent limitation is not
included in the permit that is--
``(i) specifically identified as controlled or monitored
through indicator parameters in the permit, the fact sheet
for the permit, or the administrative record relating to the
permit;
``(ii) specifically identified during the permit
application process as present in discharges to which the
permit will apply; or
``(iii) whether or not specifically identified in the
permit or during the permit application process--

``(I) present in any waste streams or processes of the
point source to which the permit applies, which waste streams
or processes are specifically identified during the permit
application process; or
``(II) otherwise within the scope of any operations of the
point source to which the permit applies, which scope of
operations is specifically identified during the permit
application process.''.

(b) Expression of Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations.--Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(t) Expression of Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations.--If the Administrator (or a State, in the case
of a permit program approved by the Administrator) determines
that a water quality-based limitation on a discharge of a
pollutant is necessary to include in a permit under this
section in addition to any appropriate technology-based
effluent limitations included in such permit, the
Administrator (or the State) may include such water quality-
based limitation in such permit only in the form of a
limitation that--
``(1) specifies the pollutant to which it applies; and
``(2) clearly describes the manner in which compliance with
the limitation may be achieved, which shall include--
``(A) a numerical limit on the discharge of such pollutant;
``(B) a narrative description of required actions to be
applied to the discharge (including any measures or practices
required to be applied); or
``(C) a narrative description of a limitation on the
discharge that specifies the level of control to be
applied.''.

SEC. 9. FOREST PROTECTION AND WILDLAND FIREFIGHTER SAFETY.

Section 402(l)(3)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)(3)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``for a discharge from'' and inserting the
following: ``for--
``(i) a discharge from'';
(2) in clause (i) (as so designated), by striking the
period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) a discharge resulting from the aerial application of
a product used for fire control and suppression purposes that
appears on the most current Forest Service Qualified Products
List (or any successor list).''.

SEC. 10. AGRICULTURAL STORMWATER DISCHARGE.

Section 402(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1342(l)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(4) Agricultural stormwater discharge.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall not require a
permit, nor directly or indirectly require any State to
require a permit, under this section for discharges of
stormwater, including from subsurface drainage, from
agricultural land that occur in direct response to a
precipitation event.
``(B) Agricultural land defined.--In this paragraph, the
term `agricultural land' includes--
``(i) land on which an agricultural input (such as manure
and other crop nutrients, crop protection, or seed) is
applied;
``(ii) land on which animals (including fish and
shellfish), crops (including fruit and nut trees), crop
residue, plants, seed, or vegetation are present for purposes
of farming or ranching; and
``(iii) land that is--

``(I) immediately adjacent to, and functionally related to,
land described in clause (i) or (ii); and
``(II) necessary to support agricultural production, soil
conservation, flood control, or water quality.''.

SEC. 11. REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS.

Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(u) Discharges of Pesticides.--
``(1) No permit requirement.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the
Administrator or a State under this Act for a discharge from
a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide
authorized for sale, distribution, or use under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or the residue
of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such
pesticide.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the
following discharges of a pesticide or pesticide residue:
``(A) A discharge resulting from the application of a
pesticide in violation of a provision of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that is relevant
to protecting water quality, if--
``(i) the discharge would not have occurred but for the
violation; or
``(ii) the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue in the
discharge is greater than would have occurred without the
violation.
``(B) Stormwater discharges subject to regulation under
subsection (p).
``(C) The following discharges subject to regulation under
this section:
``(i) Manufacturing or industrial effluent.
``(ii) Treatment works effluent.
``(iii) Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel, including a discharge resulting from ballasting
operations or vessel biofouling prevention.''.

SEC. 12. REDUCING PERMITTING UNCERTAINTY.

(a) In General.--Section 404(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(c) The Administrator'' and inserting the
following:
``(c) Specification or Use of Defined Area.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator'';
(2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by inserting
``during the period described in paragraph (2) and'' before
``after notice and opportunity for public hearings''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Period of prohibition.--The period during which the
Administrator may prohibit the specification (including the
withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as a
disposal site, or deny or restrict the use of any defined
area for specification (including the withdrawal of
specification) as a disposal site, under paragraph (1)
shall--
``(A) begin on the date on which an applicant submits all
the information required to complete an application for a
permit under this section; and
``(B) end on the date on which the Secretary issues the
permit.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to a permit application submitted under section
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1344) after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 13. NATIONWIDE PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 404(e) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(e)(1) In carrying'' and inserting the
following:
``(e) General Permits.--
``(1) Permits authorized.--In carrying'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``(2) No general'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Term.--No general''; and
(B) by striking ``five years'' and inserting ``ten years'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Considerations.--In determining the environmental
effects of an activity under paragraph (1) or (2), the
Secretary--
``(A) shall consider only the effects of any discharge of
dredged or fill material resulting from such activity;
``(B) shall consider any effects of a discharge of dredged
or fill material into less than 3 acres of navigable waters
to be a minimal adverse environmental effect; and
``(C) may consider any effects of a discharge of dredged or
fill material into 3 acres or more of navigable waters to be
a minimal adverse environmental effect.
``(4) Nationwide permits for linear projects.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the Secretary shall maintain general permits on
a nationwide basis for--
``(i) linear infrastructure projects that result in a
discharge of dredged or fill material into less than 3 acres
of navigable waters for each single and complete project; and
``(ii) linear pipeline projects that do not result in the
loss of navigable waters in an amount that is greater than
0.5 acres for each single and complete project.
``(B) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Linear infrastructure project.--The term `linear
infrastructure project' means a project to carry out any
activity required for the construction, expansion,
maintenance, modification, or removal of infrastructure and
associated facilities for the transmission from a point of
origin to a terminal point of communications or electricity,
or for the transportation from a point of origin to a
terminal point of people, water, or wastewater.
``(ii) Linear pipeline project.--The term `linear pipeline
project' means a project to carry out any activity required
for the construction, expansion, maintenance, modification,
or removal of infrastructure and associated facilities for
the transportation from a point of origin to a terminal point
of carbon dioxide, fuel, or hydrocarbons, in the form of a
liquid, liquescent, gaseous, or slurry substance or
supercritical fluid, including oil and gas pipeline
facilities.
``(iii) Single and complete project.--The term `single and
complete project' has the meaning given that term in section
330.2 of title 33,

[[Page H5778]]

Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of
enactment of this paragraph).
``(5) Reissuance of nationwide permits.--In determining
whether to reissue a general permit issued under this
subsection on a nationwide basis--
``(A) no consultation with an applicable State pursuant to
section 6(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1535(a)) is required;
``(B) no consultation with a Federal agency pursuant to
section 7(a)(2) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) is
required; and
``(C) the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) shall
be satisfied by preparing an environmental assessment with
respect to such general permit.''.
(b) Regulatory Revisions Required.--The Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall
expeditiously revise the regulations applicable to carrying
out section 404(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344) in order to streamline the processes for
issuing general permits under such section to promote
efficient and consistent implementation of such section.
(c) Administration of Nationwide Permit Program.--In
carrying out section 404(e) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), including in revising
regulations under subsection (b) of this section, the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
may not finalize or implement any modification to--
(1) general condition 15 (relating to single and complete
projects), as included in the final rule titled ``Reissuance
and Modification of Nationwide Permits'' and published on
January 13, 2021, by the Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers (86 Fed. Reg. 2868);
(2) the definition of the term ``single and complete linear
project'', as included in such final rule (86 Fed. Reg.
2877); or
(3) the definition of the term ``single and complete
project'', as included in section 330.2 of title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act).

SEC. 14. DEADLINE FOR REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION FOR PERMIT PROGRAMS FOR DREDGED OR
FILL MATERIAL.

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
(1) in subsection (g)--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) If the Administrator determines that additional
information is necessary for the description of a program
submitted by a State to be full and complete under paragraph
(1), the Administrator shall, not later than 45 days after
the date of the receipt of the program and statement
submitted by the State under such paragraph, submit to the
State a written request for all such information.''; and
(2) in subsection (h)(1), by striking ``paragraph (1) of
this subsection'' and inserting ``subsection (g)(1)''.

SEC. 15. JUDICIAL REVIEW TIMELINE CLARITY.

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (t) as subsection (u);
(2) in subsection (u), as so redesignated, by striking
``Nothing in the section'' and inserting ``Savings
Provision.--Nothing in this section''; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (s) the following:
``(t) Judicial Review.--
``(1) Statute of limitations.--Notwithstanding any
applicable provision of law relating to statutes of
limitations--
``(A) an action seeking judicial review of the approval by
the Administrator of a State permit program pursuant to this
section shall be filed not later than the date that is 60
days after the date on which the approval was issued;
``(B) an action seeking judicial review of an individual
permit or general permit issued under this section shall be
filed not later than the date that is 60 days after the date
on which the permit was issued; and
``(C) an action seeking judicial review of a verification
that an activity involving a discharge of dredged or fill
material is authorized by a general permit issued under this
section shall be filed not later than the date that is 60
days after the date on which such verification was issued.
``(2) Limitation on commencement of certain actions.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no action
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) may be
commenced unless the action--
``(A) is filed by a party that submitted a comment--
``(i) during the public comment period for the
administrative proceedings related to the action; and
``(ii) which was sufficiently detailed to put the
Administrator, the Secretary, or the State, as applicable, on
notice of the issue upon which the party seeks judicial
review; and
``(B) is related to such comment.
``(3) Remedies.--
``(A) Actions relating to permit programs.--If a court
determines that the Administrator did not comply with the
requirements of this section in issuing an approval of a
State permit program pursuant to this section--
``(i) the court shall remand the matter to the
Administrator for further proceedings consistent with the
determination of the court; and
``(ii) the court may not vacate, revoke, enjoin, or
otherwise limit the authority of the State to issue permits
under such State permit program.
``(B) Actions relating to permits.--If a court determines
that the Secretary or the State, as applicable, did not
comply with the requirements of this section in issuing an
individual or general permit under this section, or in
verifying that an activity involving a discharge of dredged
or fill material is authorized by a general permit issued
under this section, as applicable--
``(i) the court shall remand the matter to the Secretary or
the State, as applicable, for further proceedings consistent
with the determination of the court;
``(ii) with respect to a determination regarding the
issuance of an individual or general permit under this
section, the court may not vacate, revoke, enjoin, or
otherwise limit the permit, unless the court finds that
activities authorized under the permit would present an
imminent and substantial danger to human health or the
environment for which there is no other equitable remedy
available under the law; and
``(iii) with respect to a determination regarding a
verification that an activity involving a discharge of
dredged or fill material is authorized by a general permit
issued under this section, the court may not enjoin or
otherwise limit the discharge unless the court finds that the
activity would present an imminent and substantial danger to
human health or the environment for which there is no other
equitable remedy available under the law.
``(4) Timeline to act on court order.--If a court remands a
matter under paragraph (3), the court shall set and enforce a
reasonable schedule and deadline, which may not exceed 180
days from the date on which the court remands such matter,
except as otherwise required by law, for the Administrator,
the Secretary, or the State, as applicable, to take such
actions as the court may order.''.

SEC. 16. RESTORING FEDERALISM IN CLEAN WATER PERMITTING.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall complete a review of the regulations applicable to the
approval of State permit programs under section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) in order
to identify revisions to such regulations necessary to
streamline the approval process, reduce administrative
burdens, and encourage additional States to administer a
permit program under such section, and the Administrator
shall implement any such revisions as appropriate.

SEC. 17. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION BACKLOG REDUCTION.

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall expedite such procedures and reallocate or
augment such personnel and resources of the Corps of
Engineers as the Secretary determines necessary to eliminate
any backlog existing as of June 5, 2025, of--
(1) applications for permits under section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344); or
(2) requests for jurisdictional determinations or wetlands
delineations under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.

SEC. 18. DEFINITION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS.

Section 502(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1362(7)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(7) The term'' and inserting the
following:
``(7) Navigable waters.--
``(A) In general.--The term''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `navigable waters' does not
include the following:
``(i) Any component of a waste treatment system, including
any lagoon or treatment pond (such as a settling or cooling
pond), designed to actively or passively--

``(I) convey or retain wastewater; or
``(II) concentrate, settle, reduce, or remove pollutants
from wastewater.

``(ii) Ephemeral features that flow only in direct response
to precipitation.
``(iii) Any area that--

``(I) prior to December 23, 1985, was drained or otherwise
manipulated for the purpose, or having the effect, of making
production of an agricultural product possible, as determined
by the Administrator and the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, which determinations shall be
consistent with any designations of prior converted cropland
made by the Secretary of Agriculture; and
``(II) as determined by the Administrator--

``(aa) at least once in the immediately preceding five
years has been used for, or in support of, agricultural
purposes, including grazing, haying, idling land for
conservation use (such as habitat management, pollinator and
wildlife management, water storage and supply management, and
flood management), irrigation tailwater storage, farm-raised
fish production, cranberry production, nutrient retention,
and idling land for soil recovery after natural disasters
such as hurricanes and drought; and
``(bb) has not reverted to wetlands (as defined in section
120.2 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect
on the date of enactment of this clause).
``(iv) Groundwater.
``(v) Any other features determined to be excluded by the
Administrator and the Secretary of the Army, acting through
the Chief of Engineers.''.

SEC. 19. APPLICABILITY OF SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND
COUNTERMEASURE RULE.

Section 1049 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 1361 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``20,000'' and
inserting ``42,000'';
(B) by amending paragraph (2)(A) to read as follows:
``(A) an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater
than 10,000 gallons but less than 42,000 gallons; and'';

[[Page H5779]]

(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) with an aggregate aboveground storage capacity of
less than or equal to 10,000 gallons; and''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period; and
(D) by striking paragraph (4);
(2) in subsection (c)(2)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``1,000'' and inserting
``1,320''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``2,500'' and inserting
``3,000''; and
(3) by striking subsection (d).

SEC. 20. COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT
STEERING COUNCIL.

With respect to any covered project (as defined under
section 41001 of the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m)) for which a
certification or permit from a State under section 401, 402,
or 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
required, the State is encouraged to choose to participate,
to the maximum extent practicable, in the environmental
review and authorization process under section 41003(c) of
the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m-2(c)), pursuant to paragraph
(3)(A) of such section.

SEC. 21. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
AGREEMENT.

It is the sense of Congress that the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement is a voluntary, cooperative agreement
between the Federal Government, the State of Delaware, the
District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, the State of New York, the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and the State of West Virginia. As such, the
Federal Government should take a collaborative and
cooperative approach to the parties with regard to their
compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load
outlined in such agreement.

The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bean of Florida

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Insert after section 15 the following:

SEC. __. MAINTAINING COOPERATIVE PERMITTING.

(a) Withdrawal of Approval Without Congressional
Authorization Prohibited.--The permit programs described in
subsection (b) are ratified, approved, and of full force and
effect, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (referred to in this section as the ``Administrator'')
may not withdraw the approval of those permit programs,
including through the process described in section 404(i) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(i)),
unless the withdrawal is expressly authorized by an Act of
Congress enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Permit Programs Described.--The permit programs
referred to in subsection (a) are the following State permit
programs for the discharge of dredged or fill material
approved under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344):
(1) The program of the State of Michigan, approved in the
notice of the Environmental Protection Agency entitled
``Michigan Department of Natural Resources Section 404 Permit
Program Approval'' (49 Fed. Reg. 38947 (October 2, 1984)) and
as described in section 233.70 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (including any updates to the program described
in a successor Federal Register notice).
(2) The program of the State of New Jersey, approved in the
final rule and notice of the Environmental Protection Agency
entitled ``New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy Section 404 Permit Program Approval'' (59 Fed.
Reg. 9933 (March 2, 1994)) and as described in section 233.71
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (including any
updates to the program described in a successor Federal
Register notice).
(3) The program of the State of Florida, as described in
the notice of the Environmental Protection Agency entitled
``EPA's Approval of Florida's Clean Water Act Section 404
Assumption Request'' (85 Fed. Reg. 83553 (December 22, 2020))
(including any updates to the program described in a
successor Federal Register notice), including the
Programmatic Biological Opinion with Incidental Take
Statement associated with the program.
(c) Program Transition Period.--During the 90-day period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers (referred
to in this section as the ``Secretary''), and the State of
Florida may both issue permits authorized under the program
described in subsection (b)(3) for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into navigable waters (as described in
subsection 404(g)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(g)(1))) within the jurisdiction of the
State of Florida.
(d) Approval of Comparable State Programs.--
(1) In general.--If the Administrator determines that a
State program submitted under subsection (g)(1) of section
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1344) is comparable to a State program described in any of
paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b) of this section,
the Administrator shall make the determination described in
subsection (h)(2)(A) of such section 404 with respect to that
program.
(2) Notification.--On making the determination required
under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall notify the
Secretary and the applicable State of that determination.
(3) Suspension.--On notification from the Administrator
under paragraph (2) and from a State that the State has begun
to administer a program approved pursuant to paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall suspend the issuance of permits under
subsections (a) and (e) of section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) for activities with
respect to which a permit may be issued by the State under
that program.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Bean) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, ``If you build it, he will come.'' ``If you build it, he
will come.'' Those are the words Kevin Costner's character famously
heard, a mysterious voice encouraging him to construct the most famous
baseball field in America, the ``Field of Dreams.''
Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, that only happens in the movies. Because
for the last 2 years, if anyone in the free State of Florida tries to
build anything, only the Washington bureaucracy will come. However,
this wasn't always the case.
In 2020, Florida became the third State, joining Michigan and New
Jersey, to implement and run a Clean Water Act section 404 Permitting
program.
These State-run programs reduce duplicative requirements, reduce
costs, and expedite permit approval times exactly as Congress intended.
Throughout the State-administered review process, Federal agencies
maintained robust oversight to ensure Florida's 404 permitting program
complied with all Federal requirements, while the EPA maintained strict
control over Florida's decisions.
However, Florida's successful permitting program, along with Michigan
and New Jersey, has been thrown into limbo by litigation stripping
Florida of its ability to run its program. The court's decision, which
is contrary to the position of both the Trump and Biden
administrations, has shifted permitting authority back to the Federal
Government, creating enormous disruptions to Florida's efforts to
protect wetlands and water resources and is now blocking Florida's
ability to issue necessary permits for development projects across the
State, including: projects to restore Florida's Everglades; projects to
build or improve sidewalks, bridges, utilities, roads, and highways;
solar energy projects; and other projects that impact grid reliability.
The ability for States to take the lead in regulating their natural
resources is vital, particularly in a State like Florida where growing
our economy is contingent on protecting the environment.
Mr. Chair, that is why the Bean amendment seeks to codify the
permitting program administered by the States of Florida, Michigan, and
New Jersey, and to provide certainty to the other States lined up to do
the same.
These States have been examples of cooperation between the State and
Federal Government, and now Congress must provide clarity and
confidence for any additional State interested in joining these three.
We need this amendment because protecting the environment in Florida
is protecting our field of dreams.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H5780]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, despite our friendship, I do oppose Mr.
Bean's amendment, yet support the programs that have been implemented
in Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey, and we want them to continue.
However, Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to legislatively mandate
approval of a program, without changes, that was adopted without the
proper and necessary oversight and review.
The Clean Water Act was specifically enacted as a Federal-State
partnership.
The Environmental Protection Agency has approved 47 States to
implement the point source discharge program under section 402 of the
Clean Water Act, and having States as coregulators makes comprehensive
implementation of this program possible.
However, far fewer States have sought approval to regulate the
discharge of dredge-and-fill materials under section 404 of the act,
again with only New Jersey and my home State of Michigan currently
approved to implement this authority.
We do hope Florida will go back to the administration and seek
approval, once again, but this amendment relates to Florida's attempts
to receive approval of its own section 404 program without the proper
process.
In 2024, a Federal district court struck down the approval of
Florida's 404 permit authority on the grounds that both the State and
Federal agencies failed to follow the rules in approving the State's
program.
I am not opposed to the State of Florida or any State seeking to
manage 404 authorities within its borders. In fact, I have been a huge
champion of this program.
The State of Florida can pursue implementing a 404 program but
through the proper approval process through the administration.
Congress should not mandate a program that has been deemed deficient by
the courts.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I remind the gentlewoman from
Michigan that Michigan is such a beautiful State. It has got one of the
longest freshwater coastlines of any State. That may be a trivia fact,
but no one is going to fight harder for Michigan's environment than the
people of Michigan. This amendment gives them that authority back, and
so I would ask her to reconsider her opposition.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters: One from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection in support of the Bean amendment
and, also, a letter from the National Association of Home Builders also
detailing how passage of the Bean amendment and underlying bill will
lead to the creation of more attainable housing.
Florida Department of

Environmental Protection,

Tallahassee, FL, August 7, 2025.
Hon. Aaron Bean,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Bean: On behalf of Florida's
environment and regulated communities, I would like to voice
my support for the Maintaining Cooperative Permitting Act of
2025 (H.R. 2030/S. 1014).
The Act is necessary to set right last year's ruling from a
federal district court in Washington, D.C., which vacated the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s approval of Florida's
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permitting Program. The Act will
also provide a clear and workable path for other states to
assume administration of this important program.
The D.C. court's decision, which is contrary to the
position of the Trump and Biden Administrations as it relates
to Florida's program, has shifted permitting authority back
to the federal government, creating enormous disruptions to
Florida's efforts to protect wetlands and water resources and
is now blocking Florida's ability to issue necessary permits
for development projects across the State.
State ``assumption'' of the Section 404 program is an
important part of the Clean Water Act's cooperative
federalism structure. Assumption can streamline permitting
processes, reduce duplication of effort and overall
expenditures by state and federal authorities, while
providing better protection of a state's environmental
resources by those who know their state best.
Beginning almost a decade ago, Florida began work to
establish a comprehensive Section 404 permitting program.
After receiving approval from EPA in 2020, Florida trained
over 300 certified wetlands evaluators and other staff and
received and processed thousands of permit applications for
Section 404 permits. Florida's program is consistent with
federal Clean Water Act requirements and all permit
applications are reviewed by both federal and state wildlife
agencies to ensure full protection of threatened or
endangered species and their habitats.
I urge you to support the Maintaining Cooperative
Permitting Act of 2025 to ensure Florida's Clean Water Act
404 permitting program is rightfully restored to the state.
Sincerely,
Alexis A. Lambert.
____

National Association of Home Builders,

Washington, DC, December 10, 2025.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson: On behalf of the more than 140,000
members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB),
I am writing to convey our strong support for H.R. 3898, the
PERMIT Act, which will provide necessary clarity and
confidence required under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
permitting process. Because clear and predictable permitting
leads to the creation of attainable housing, NAHB has
designated support for passage of H.R. 3898 as a KEY VOTE.
Regrettably, housing production is not keeping pace with
demand. Among the significant headwinds facing the home
building industry is an unpredictable regulatory landscape
that adds costs and reduces the availability of buildable
lots--making housing more unattainable. This legislation
respects environmental protections and provides pragmatic
solutions to Section 404 and Section 402 of the CWA.
Under Section 404--dredge and fill permitting--home
builders pull some of the highest numbers of Nationwide
Permits (NWPs) issued annually. To assist with planning and
permit backlogs, this legislation extends the duration of a
NWP from 5 to 10 years and right sizes the acreage threshold
for impacts to where the NWP was originally intended.
To better assist states in assuming their own 404
permitting authority, this bill requires the Environmental
Protection Agency to review its regulations and procedures
surrounding the 404 approval process. This will help
streamline and ease administrative burdens states face when
attempting to assume their own permitting program.
A key feature of Section 404 permitting is the Waters of
the United States rule. This bill codifies long-established
exclusions such as ephemeral features, groundwater, and prior
converted cropland that have been included as part of WOTUS
regulations over the years. This will provide important
predictability and consistency for property owners when
determining which water features are jurisdictional.
Under Section 402--the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)--this legislation would require
permit writers to tie NPDES permit conditions to what happens
on their site, rather than what happens downstream to impair
receiving waters. This approach allows regulators to explain
the measures that home builders must take to comply with
their NPDES permit, without imposing numeric discharge
limits.
NAHB additionally urges passage of Amendment 27, submitted
by Representative Crawford, pertaining to compensatory
mitigation. Compensatory mitigation has become a significant
cost and barrier for builders: Representative Crawford's
amendment takes meaningful steps towards reducing mitigation
costs through simple, commonsense reforms that maintain
environmental protections while allowing for economic growth.
NAHB also commends Amendment 52, submitted by
Representative Bean, pertaining to state assumption of the
Section 404 program for Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey.
Litigation over state assumption has created significant
uncertainty for CWA permitting nationally, and NAHB urges
Congress to return Section 404 to its original intent,
allowing states to assume the permitting role. This will
provide confidence and clarity for states interested in
Section 404 assumption, and builders within those states.
The home building industry requires certitude in the CWA
permitting process. The PERMIT Act respects environmental
safeguards and makes significant strides in ensuring clarity
in the regulatory process. For these reasons, NAHB
respectfully urges passage on the House floor.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Lake A. Coulson.
Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chair, this has been a model. This program
works. The Reagan administration approved Michigan's program. The
Clinton administration approved New Jersey's program. Then Florida's
program was approved by the Trump administration and then defended by
the Biden administration. This is something we should agree on,
bipartisan support to help protect the environment.
Mr. Chair, it is Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey, but here are the
States that are in line, that say we

[[Page H5781]]

want to protect our own environment, too: Alaska, Arizona, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, and Virginia. They
are all in line to fight for their own State and protect the
environment in their own State.
As I wrap up, I thank Chairman Graves for his leadership, as well as
Congressman Collins and Congressman Rouzer. They have all said we need
to step up. Our environment is worth fighting for, and that is what the
Bean amendment does. I ask for your support.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1230

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Babin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 15, line 14, strike the final period and closing
quotation mark.
Page 15, after line 14, insert the following:
``(h) Judicial Review.--
``(1) Affected certification actions.--This subsection
shall apply to any civil action for the review of a
certification action with respect to an applicant for a
license or permit--
``(A) for the construction or operation of facilities for
the transmission of electric energy or energy fuels in
interstate or foreign commerce; or
``(B) from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
``(2) Standing and filing deadline.--Not withstanding any
other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to
review a civil action under this subsection, except for a
civil action filed not later than 30 days after the final
action on the certification by--
``(A) the applicant; or
``(B) a person who has suffered, or likely and imminently
will suffer, direct and irreparable economic harm from the
authorization; provided that an organization or association
satisfies this harm requirement only if each member of the
organization or association satisfies the requirement.
``(3) Expedited consideration.--
``(A) The Court shall--
``(i) set any petition for review brought under this
subsection for expedited consideration; and
``(ii) issue a final decision no later than 120 days after
the filing of the civil action, unless the court finds
extraordinary circumstances, in which the Court may take up
to 60 additional days to issue a final decision.
``(B) Failure to comply with deadline.--If the civil action
concerns a certification that has been granted, the Court's
failure to issue a final decision in compliance with the
deadlines in subparagraph (A) shall mean the civil action is
denied with prejudice.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Babin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, pipelines and energy infrastructure are the
backbone of American energy dominance, yet section 401 of the Clean
Water Act, designed to protect our water quality, has too often become
a roadblock for critical projects.
Too many States are using this authority to block interstate natural
gas pipelines, transmission lines, and other federally approved
projects for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with water
quality. These projects are routinely certified by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission as being in the national interest, yet they are
never built because a single State can withhold or delay a 401
certification.
We have all seen the consequences: delays that stretch on for years,
procedural roadblocks that force applicants to withdraw and to resubmit
just to restart the process, and legal hurdles so steep that a single
denial can derail an entire multistate project or kill it altogether.
Meanwhile, these very same States continue benefiting from the
affordable, reliable energy produced in other parts of the country,
even as they obstruct the pipelines needed for our Nation's
development, economic security, and long-term competitiveness.
This amendment tackles that problem head-on. It establishes expedited
judicial review for major energy infrastructure projects, ensuring that
the courts reach timely decisions.
It also limits standing to the applicant or those who face direct or
irreparable harm, preventing activist groups from weaponizing the
process to stall projects that are essential to our power grid,
economy, and, most importantly, national security.
Mr. Chair, we cannot meet growing energy demand, power our data
centers, or lead the world in AI without the infrastructure to move
American energy. It is impossible. This amendment is a targeted,
responsible solution, and a crucial step toward restoring America's
energy dominance.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 2.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas.
This amendment doubles down on two of the bad ideas in the base of
the text of the PERMIT Act: limiting a State's right to protect its own
water resources and limiting legitimate civil action on harmful
permits.
This amendment limits lawsuits to within 30 days of a Clean Water Act
section 401 certification, with the very high bar of imminent,
irreparable economic harm. Not only is this hard to prove, but impacts
can come in many forms beyond basic economic impacts.
Further, if the court doesn't act within the amendment's arbitrary
shot clock, the suit is automatically denied with prejudice, meaning
that the suit can't be brought again, through no fault of the harmed
party.
Finally, this amendment requiring any suit to be filed within 30 days
also applies to the operation of whatever the license or permit is for.
As we know, many infrastructure projects are designed to be in service
for 100 years. Who knows what impacts might come 50 or 75 years down
the road or what changes will occur if the company stops maintaining a
facility in the future. This provision is dangerous and a shortsighted
assault on the ability to maintain clean water.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman and understand her
opposition, but her reasons for opposing this amendment are the very
reasons that we need this amendment.
We have a situation that has been weaponized, that has held up and
killed many good projects that would lead to our energy independence
and to those very States that she is talking about.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, the PERMIT Act is the bill you offer when you
don't want to protect clean water. It is a very sad and extreme bill.
With respect to my good friend, Chairman Babin, this amendment only
makes it worse.
In 2023, the Supreme Court gutted clean water protections that we
have relied on since the 1980s, and now, the Trump administration is
trying to make it the law that Americans don't deserve clean water.
Already today, clean water protections have been defanged, leaving up
to 80 percent of our streams and 50 percent of our wetlands at risk of
pollution or destruction, but my House Republican friends have offered
this bill that further rolls back the remaining protections on clean
water.
Mr. Chair, there are a couple of articles this week that highlight
why this is so important. In Louisville, Kentucky, their water facility
recently investigated why they had a spike in PFAS, so-called forever
chemicals, and found out that a superconductor plant, Chemours, had
dumped a PFAS called GenX into the water. This is a company that
knowingly violated the allowable dumping limits several times.
The only way that folks knew that they were able to address this was
when they found out that Chemours had been violating its Clean Water
Act permit.

[[Page H5782]]

Louisville citizens have not only had to pay for upgrades to make up
for their company's violations, but now they face serious health risks.
This bill is only going to increase the burdens on Louisville taxpayers
and everyone who is downstream on the river.
The second article today is from The Washington Post. Mothers whose
drinking water was downstream of sites contaminated with PFOA and PFOS,
both of which are considered likely carcinogens, were much more likely
to lose their babies and more likely to have a preterm or low-weight
birth.
Pollution has impacts, and we are just beginning to learn about the
impacts of PFAS in our water.
The Trump administration said that they want to make America healthy
again, a wonderful goal and a good idea, but this bill does exactly the
opposite. Please, let's kill the bill and kill the amendment. It is
dangerous to us all.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.

{time} 1240

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by
Mr. Babin.
Let's be very clear about this. This amendment builds directly on the
critical Clean Water Act section 401 certification reforms that I
authored in the underlying bill. These are reforms that refocus the 401
certification process on its original and proper purpose, and that is:
protecting water quality.
Unfortunately, in recent years, certain States have abused this
process, using it as a tool to block or indefinitely delay
infrastructure projects for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do
with water quality.
Mr. Babin's amendment strengthens judicial review for 401
certifications on major energy infrastructure projects by curbing
frivolous lawsuits and, two, ensuring expedited consideration when
legitimate challenges are brought.
Mr. Chair, that is all there is to it. It is very simple and
straightforward. It is actually exceptionally pro-environment, and I
support this amendment.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, I reiterate exactly what we said in my opening
statement and what Mr. Rouzer has stated. Many times, the opposition
has nothing to do with clean water whatsoever. It has been weaponized.
We need to expedite this, as Mr. Rouzer, my friend, said.
Mr. Chair, this is extremely good for the environment, and I would
still urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, this amendment doubles down on two of the
bad ideas in the base text of the PERMIT Act: limiting a State's right
to protect its own water resources and limiting legitimate civil
actions on harmful permits. I oppose this amendment and encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Biggs of Arizona

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 37, line 15, strike ``five years'' and insert ``ten
years''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, this particular amendment is a very
simple and straightforward amendment. It deals with ranching lands that
have been used for more than 40 years. It gives the ranchers the
flexibility they need without Washington bureaucrats second-guessing
their operations.
In Arizona and, in fact, the entire Western United States, drought
cycles can last decades. In fact, Arizona and much of the West have
been in a 30-year drought. Under the current 5-year window, pauses that
ranchers and farmers might take can often revert to wetlands,
triggering EPA oversight that locks out grazing.
My amendment recognizes the reality of the West and protects these
parcels so they can return to production when conditions improve
without fear of Federal reclamation. During the Biden administration,
expansive WOTUS interpretations treated dry washes and ephemeral
streams as navigable waters, piling on permits that crippled ranchers
and farmers in the West.
Without grazing, it triggers something more devastating in some
respects, which is wildfires. We have had a bit of a wet year. We have
grasslands in part of the West now that are 2 feet in height. When the
summer comes and the heat comes and they dry up, this will trigger
massive wildfires.
Ranchers in my own district have spent hundreds of thousands, even
millions, on compliance costs, environmental assessments, and legal
fees just to access lands they have stewarded for generations and, in
some case, almost 100 years.
This overreach hurts family ranchers and contributes to a shrinking
U.S. cattle herd, now at its lowest level since the 1950s, driving beef
prices up more than 14 percent in the last year. By opening more land
and cutting red tape, this amendment empowers ranchers to expand
grazing, manage habitat, control wildfires, and meet market needs.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, the gentleman's amendment would change the
abandonment threshold for certain agricultural lands that had
historically been wetlands.
Under the 1985 Swampbuster Act, farmers are discouraged from
converting wetlands to farmland by making farmers ineligible for
Federal farm program benefits if they drain, dredge, or fill wetlands
for agricultural production after 1985.
However, since 1985, the Clean Water Act has recognized that certain
prior converted cropland would not be subject to the Clean Water Act
permitting if those agricultural lands remain in production and are not
abandoned for more than 5 years.
This 5-year abandonment threshold has been in place for over 40 years
and has balanced the need for certainty for farmers with the reality
that some of these areas might revert back to critically important
wetlands if abandoned by the farmer.
The gentleman's amendment would upend this established practice and
create more uncertainty on whether a renewed wetland is or is not
subject to Federal protections.
In light of the ongoing assault on Federal wetland protections
undertaken by the Supreme Court, the Trump administration, and this
bill, I do not support adding more uncertainty to the protection of
critical waters and wetlands.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, what I would suggest is that folks
come out West and take a look at the land. Take a look at land that has
been determined to be wetlands, dry washes, and ephemeral streams. Then
ask the question: Why is that a wetland?
When we get great rains, what, once every 3 years, that wash gets
filled. When we do not allow grazing, what happens is there is time for
wildfires. The habitat is endangered, and things aren't better; they
are worse. This amendment helps cure that.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of any time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I think we have made the case here.
We

[[Page H5783]]

are not abandoning lands. We are taking lands that have been in
production for over 40 years. They have to let it lie fallow and let it
grow.
My colleagues across the aisle are saying: We don't care if they have
to let it lie fallow. We don't care what the reality is in the West.
All we care about is protecting the bureaucratic rule.
Mr. Chair, that is a doggone shame because beef production is
incredibly low right now. Beef consumption is projected to be 28.6
billion pounds this year. It is falling because of high prices.
What are we doing? We are saying we are going to import it from
Argentina. When a county in my State normally has 60,000 head, and over
the last 10 years that has gone down to 25,000 head, that is because of
this rule that needs to be changed.
Mr. Chair, I urge passage of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment for all the reasons
asserted previously and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Biggs of Arizona

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Add at the end the following:

SEC. __. IDENTIFICATION AND PERMITTING FOR WATER RECHARGE ON
CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS.

(a) Review and Identification.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall review lands
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary to identify parcels
of such lands that are hydrologically and geologically well-
suited for water recharge efforts, including aquifer
recharge, surface water infiltration, or managed aquifer
recharge projects, taking into consideration factors such as
soil permeability, proximity to water sources, and minimal
environmental impact.
(b) Streamlined Permitting Process.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and each relevant State water resource
agency, shall--
(1) establish clear and simple permitting processes for
water recharge projects on parcels of land identified by the
Secretary under subsection (a), including a process to
facilitate (to the extent practicable)--
(A) the actions of the Secretary under section 17
applicable to such projects; and
(B) the expedited issuance of a permit under section 404 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), as
amended by this Act, relating to such projects; and
(2) ensure, to the extent practicable, that each process
established under paragraph (1) minimizes regulatory burdens,
provides for categorical exclusions or streamlined
environmental assessments, and promotes collaboration with
State and local entities to expand water recharge efforts.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report detailing the parcels identified under
subsection (a) and each permitting process established under
subsection (b).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

{time} 1250

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I want to give context to folks
about the West, but, particularly, my own home State. In my State,
which is the sixth largest geographically in the Nation, only 18
percent of the land is privately owned. All of the rest, 82 percent, is
controlled by a government entity, State, Federal, or reservation.
My amendment is common sense and targeted. It directs the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to review lands
under their jurisdiction within 1 year and identify parcels suitable
for water recharge projects like aquifer recharge and surface
infiltration.
That is a very limited scope of the federally controlled land in
Arizona. It streamlines permitting under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, and it minimizes red tape through categorical exclusions in
collaboration with State agencies.
This ensures Federal lands become partners in water management, not
barriers, allowing Arizona communities to secure the water they need.
In Arizona, water is life, yet over 95 percent of rainfall evaporates
before it can even recharge aquifers. Even a small increase in recharge
could substantially boost underground water supplies in Arizona.
Drought cycles and Federal restrictions have idled vast areas and
threatened water security. My amendment promotes recharge efforts on
Federal lands, giving States the tools to capture and store water
before it is lost.
Mr. Chair, I want you to know, in the 18 percent of land, we lead the
world in recharge. We lead the world in recharge, and when you can
recharge underground aquifers, Mr. Chair, you save lives and you
promote good environmental quality. Under the Biden administration,
routine water projects became regulatory nightmares with EPA
restrictions untailored to Arizona's desert reality.
Securing permits often means chaotic delays from Federal
bureaucracies, even to access water on lands the Federal Government
controls, which is over 80 percent of Arizona. With only 18 percent of
Arizona privately owned, streamlined Federal permitting is essential.
My amendment delivers by identifying hydrologically suitable Federal
land and cutting bureaucracy.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be more appropriate
in a bipartisan Water Resources Development Act instead of a toxic,
partisan assault on the Clean Water Act.
Addressing the water supply needs of communities ought to be
something we all agree on.
While the gentleman's amendment would seek to address water supply
needs through aquifer recharge projects conducted by the Army Corps of
Engineers, it is being offered to a bill that will roll back clean
water protections and increase costs for vulnerable communities.
I urge the gentleman and other supporters of this amendment to engage
with the bipartisan collaborative Water Resources Development Act
process to move their proposal forward. We would love to talk to him
about it.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment in this context, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, this amendment empowers local
entities to expand recharge efforts keeping aquifers full and
communities strong in Arizona and the West. Arizona's rural economy
depends on agriculture and ranching. We cannot allow water shortages to
slow growth or drive up food costs nationwide.
By investing in groundwater and stormwater recharge, this amendment
increases supplies, lowers costs for farmers, and strengthens the
domestic food chain. It removes red tape so Arizona can secure water
for future generations.
Identifying Federal lands for recharge is simple, it is necessary,
and it is appropriate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same. We invite this amendment in a separate Water
Resources Development Act process.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not be offered.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Crawford

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H5784]]

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Insert after section 16 the following:

SEC. __. REVISION OF FRAMEWORK FOR COMPENSATORY MITIGATION.

(a) Requirement to Revise.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in
coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall publish in the Federal Register a
proposed rule, consistent with section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), to revise the
regulations issued in the final rule of the Department of
Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency titled
``Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources''
and published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2008 (73
Fed. Reg. 19594).
(b) Scope of Revisions.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary shall--
(1) incorporate lessons learned since the implementation of
the final rule described in subsection (a) and reflect
advances in science, restoration practices, and regulatory
efficiency;
(2) promote equivalency and flexibility among mitigation
options, including mitigation banking, in-lieu fee programs,
and permittee-responsible mitigation;
(3) expedite the approval of plans that use mitigation
banks, in-lieu fee programs, and permittee-responsible
mitigation;
(4) support regional watershed approaches, including by--
(A) encouraging compensatory mitigation credit generation
and sales across primary, secondary, and tertiary service
areas; and
(B) implementing mitigation requirements, policies, and
guidance that are consistent, predictable, and transparent;
(5) ensure timely coordination between Corps of Engineers
district offices and Interagency Review Teams;
(6) ensure that, for projects involving temporary impacts
to aquatic resources, including mining and other energy or
infrastructure projects with approved reclamation plans, the
revised regulations--
(A) take into account the temporary nature of such impacts;
(B) recognize activities carried out under an approved
reclamation plan as a form of minimization of such impacts,
consistent with the guidelines developed under section
404(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
(C) consider financial assurances already required under
applicable regulatory programs (including instruments such as
surety bonds, collateral bonds, letters of credit, insurance,
trust funds, and, where permitted, self-bonding) when
determining the need for additional financial assurances; and
(D) allow the use, transfer, or sale of surplus
compensatory mitigation credits generated through activities
carried out under an approved reclamation plan, if such
credits meet applicable environmental performance standards;
(7) encourage the use of off-site and out-of-kind
mitigation options where appropriate; and
(8) include any other revisions determined appropriate by
the Secretary.
(c) Guidance.--After issuing a final rule under this
section, the Secretary shall issue guidance establishing
objective, measurable success criteria for activities carried
out under an approved reclamation plan for purposes of
generating compensatory mitigation credits, and a phased
credit release schedule tied to milestones for such
activities.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Approved reclamation plan.--The term ``approved
reclamation plan''--
(A) means--
(i) a reclamation plan approved pursuant to section 510 of
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30
U.S.C. 1260);
(ii) a reclamation plan, plan of operations, or other
similar plan approved by the Secretary of Agriculture or the
Secretary of the Interior with respect to the mining or
related operations of--

(I) minerals subject to location under the general mining
laws;
(II) minerals subject to leasing under the mineral leasing
laws; or
(III) mineral materials subject to disposition under the
Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as the Materials Act of
1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

(iii) a surface use plan of operations approved pursuant to
subpart 3162 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (or a
successor regulation);
(iv) a plan of operations or utilization plan approved
pursuant to subpart 3200 of title 43, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation); and
(v) a plan of development approved pursuant to subpart 2805
of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor
regulation) that includes enforceable reclamation or surface
restoration requirements; and
(B) includes a plan of operations approved under--
(i) subpart 3809 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations
(or a successor regulation); or
(ii) part 228 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or
a successor regulation).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chair, this amendment is so great, you are not even
going to believe it.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 3898, the
PERMIT Act, that offers a solution to compensatory mitigation.
A lack of wetland mitigation credits is holding back residential
housing construction, and the available credits are increasingly
expensive.
These costs are passed down to the consumer, exacerbating the already
unaffordable housing market that the U.S. is facing.
Unpredictable and lengthy permitting timelines for mitigation banks
are making it more challenging to bring new credits to the market.
Moreover, the requirement to purchase mitigation credits located within
the same hydraulic unit code--geographic area determined by surface
hydraulic features--can mean that credits available at a nearby wetland
bank cannot be used if they are too far away.
Without available credits, a builder's second option is in-lieu fee
programs; however, not all States offer this option, or builders can
use a permittee-responsible mitigation. Still, most builders are not
equipped to carry this out. Both options are expensive and burdensome.
My amendment fixes this issue by increasing the supply of mitigation
bank credits, driving down the cost curve, and lowering home prices
both through directly lowering the regulatory cost of building a new
home and allowing builders to use lots that the cost of mitigation
today prevents them from using.
Additionally, my amendment directs the Army Corps of Engineers and
EPA to publish a revised compensatory mitigation rule that incorporates
advances in science and lessons learned since 2007; promotes
equivalency and flexibility among mitigation options, providing
builders additional options beyond mitigation bank credits; speeds the
approval of mitigation banks, including through the interagency review
process, which provides numerous duplicative opportunities for the Army
Corps offices to raise the same concerns; allows for mitigation credits
to be used across multiple hydraulic unit codes; and allows for out-of-
kind mitigation where appropriate.
Together, these changes will increase the availability of credits and
provide alternatives to ensure that a lack of credits doesn't hamstring
new developments.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 3898,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I am generally an agreeable person, but I do
have to oppose this amendment, as well, offered by the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, as I have said throughout the proceedings
today, I agree with Mr. Crawford that we have an outdated and overly
cumbersome permitting process right now that is in dire need of reform.
It is increasing costs. However, the PERMIT Act and Mr. Crawford's
amendment do nothing to address that. In fact, they add to the
confusion and the burden.
I oppose the continued weakening of Federal protections over our
wetlands and streams, as well, and I oppose this amendment because it
further weakens any remaining Federal protections to address impacts to
these critical water bodies.
There has been an ongoing assault on Federal wetlands protections
undertaken by the Supreme Court, the Trump administration, and this
bill.
As a result of the Sackett decision, historic Federal protections
were lost on over 50 percent of our wetlands and up to 70 percent of
our rivers and streams. As a four-season angler, I can tell you I take
this personally.
Now, the Trump administration is undertaking a rule to further erode
Federal protections on wetlands and streams well beyond and potentially
in contravention to the Sackett decision.
The PERMIT Act doubles down on these weakenings of Federal
protections and goes well beyond Sackett and is wholly inconsistent
with the goals and purposes of the Clean Water Act.

[[Page H5785]]

The Crawford amendment, while potentially well-intentioned, by
focusing on mitigation of wetlands impacts, misses the mark by letting
inferior mitigation proposals be deemed sufficient. This includes
mitigation proposals in different watersheds than impacts, mitigation
options that do not address lost wetland functions, or removing
mitigation requirements for so-called temporary impacts to wetlands.
We all remember deadly flash floods overwhelming local communities
this summer, a story that, unfortunately, will continue to unfold in
more and more communities across the country as extreme weather events
explode.
A root cause of those flash floods is the slow removal of the
critical benefits that wetlands play in upstream communities.
I oppose the continued weakening of these Federal protections because
of the harm that they cause to these critical wetlands.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1300

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to recognize that my
friends on the other side of the aisle do recognize that we have a real
big problem with compliance burdens and the costs associated with that,
and how that prevents Americans from realizing the American Dream of
homeownership. As they raise the point of affordability, they neglect
the fact that we can address affordability by reducing costs to
potential homeowners.
At least we can agree that we have a cumbersome regulatory framework
that needs to be fixed. This helps fix and is actually a proactive step
in addressing the affordability crisis. One of those things has to do
with homeownership, and by adopting this amendment, we are increasing
the likelihood that an American can actually build a home and realize
the American Dream.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The housing crisis is felt acutely in west Michigan. I have supported
numerous bipartisan solutions to help get more affordable homes on the
market, and permitting reform is a critical component of that.
As I have said, however, this amendment, as well as the PERMIT Act
itself, does nothing to address it. Soon, homeowners won't be able to
afford whatever home they are able to purchase and build because of the
rising costs of flood insurance or the floods that will devastate those
new homes.
At a time when costs are rising and flooding becomes more frequent,
destroying just 1 acre of wetland will increase costs by $8,000 in
additional payouts by American taxpayers through the National Flood
Insurance Program.
We can come to meaningful permitting reforms together by increasing
the staff that we have to administer permits and cutting red tape that
is truly hindering these permits from getting executed expeditiously. I
mentioned previously that the Army Corps lost its three senior-most
experts, as well as an additional 15 to 30 percent of its regulatory
staff. The confusion at the agency caused by this administration is
adding to the increase in rising costs to the American people.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chair, I have heard this mentioned more than once
today, and that is that we need to increase the number of personnel to
process, manage, and administer the regulatory burdens that Americans
are facing. Let me say that again. The Democrats say we need to
increase personnel because the regulatory burden is so cumbersome that
it takes additional personnel to be able to administer it. That seems
counterintuitive to regulatory relief.
Mr. Chair, I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Adding additional staff is just one component of the overall
permitting reform process that we hope to engage in in a meaningful
bipartisan way because we know that there are bipartisan solutions on
the table.
In the past few years, we have seen the Supreme Court, the Trump
administration, and the Republican Congress chip away at the historic
Clean Water Act.
Under the Supreme Court's misreading of this critical law, decades-
old protections have been slashed for over half of our wetlands and up
to 70 percent of our streams, resulting in almost 90 percent of our
wetlands and streams losing protection. This amendment only worsens
those protections.
I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the
same. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Nunn of Iowa

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Add at the end the following:

SEC. __. STATE-LED PERMITTING EFFICIENCY AND WATER QUALITY
PILOT.

(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall establish a voluntary pilot program
to support State-led water quality improvements in waters
listed as impaired for nitrogen or phosphorus under section
303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1313(d)).
(b) Voluntary Participation.--Participation by agricultural
producers in the program established under this section shall
be voluntary.
(c) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to authorize the regulation of nonpoint sources or
expand Federal jurisdiction.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nunn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to begin by thanking Representative Collins for his
leadership on the PERMIT Act and the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee for their joint work in a bipartisan way on many of these
issues in this bill, as well.
I rise in support today of an amendment to the PERMIT Act that would
establish a new State-led water quality pilot program through the
Environmental Protection Agency.
This amendment is straightforward, and like my home State in Iowa, it
is something that can help in our rural communities. It supports States
across the country in working to address water quality challenges using
voluntary, science-backed conservation practices that our landowners
and local partners are already engaged in implementing.
This issue hits particularly close to home for me. In the Hawkeye
State, we have seen some of the highest nitrate levels ever recorded in
our rivers and streams across Iowa. This year alone, the Raccoon and
Des Moines Rivers exceeded Federal nitrate limits multiple times,
requiring expensive water treatment to provide safe drinking water for
more than 600,000 Iowans.
More than 600 water segments across Iowa are now listed as impaired,
with just over 60 percent of our nutrient-impaired watersheds remaining
on the 303(d) list.
Iowans worked hard, as have many States, to address this issue, but
the scale of the challenge demands better coordination and support from
our Federal Government.
My amendment would create a new pilot program to strengthen the State
and Federal collaboration in areas with nitrogen and phosphorus
impairments, exactly what Iowa is struggling with. It would bring the
Environmental Protection Agency to the table with States to help
advance water quality improvements more efficiently and ensure that our
existing tools and conservation programs work together as effectively
as possible in a hybrid model.
This pilot is fully voluntary and keeps the Federal Government in its
proper lane. It does not impose any new obligations on a producer or
private landowner. What it does do is it helps best practices already
being implemented in places like Iowa and many other States that are
working to

[[Page H5786]]

meet ambitious nutrient reduction goals.
This amendment will help ensure that projects designed to improve
water quality can move forward smoothly and with support, particularly
in those areas with watersheds.
This approach is the type of State-led partnership that focuses on
solutions the PERMIT Act is intended to help support. It accelerates
the forward progress of water quality projects. It strengthens State
leadership on this issue. It gets buy-in from communities. It promotes
voluntary conservation work that everyone agrees is the best way to
help our family farms, local communities, rural hometowns, and, most
importantly, water quality across this country.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this commonsense
amendment as we move forward with the PERMIT Act.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Iowa.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, this amendment is redundant. There are
existing programs at the EPA that cover both nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution control and mitigation for their impacts on impaired waters.
Perhaps worse, this new program does not come with dedicated
appropriations, which means that if stood up, this program would have
to pull resources away from well-established EPA efforts to support
water quality improvements in communities. It is expensive, and it does
nothing.
This amendment is window dressing for this bad bill. Instead, we
should be working together on bipartisan efforts to support clean water
and improve water quality.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.

{time} 1310

Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the feedback from
my colleague on the other side of the aisle, I will remind the
gentlewoman from Michigan that not every good answer comes out of
Washington, D.C. In fact, many of them are best practice right in our
family hometowns. In a State like Iowa and in Des Moines, who helped
lead in water quality--and we want to do more--the lag time, the
bureaucracy, the delay, and the permitting coming out of Washington has
made it only harder.
This is a voluntary opportunity to create a pilot program that can
create a new idea, make a good recommendation, capture a best practice,
and help to instill it in a way that improves water quality not only at
source, but downstream for every State, as well.
While I support what the EPA is trying to do at the Federal level, I
think we all recognize that the EPA alone can't solve this. They need
help from great leaders on the ground.
Let's empower locals to have the opportunity to also be part of the
solution and not turn to, as you have noted several times, a long,
delayed permitting process in Washington to be a final solution for
every challenge that America faces.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, I am a huge supporter of Federal-State
partnerships when it comes to protecting our waters and believe that
localities and our States need to play a bigger role. However, this
particular amendment is already in place. Without direct
appropriations, we are tasking the Federal Government with creating
even more programs that they don't have the resources to fulfill. It is
costly and redundant, and that is why I am opposed.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, in closing, this amendment is about
helping States succeed to improve their water quality--not creating a
new mandate and not creating a new bureaucracy. It gives States the
support that they need to do the things that currently aren't being
executed under current law.
This is a good, project-focused effort to help innovators at the
source. It is smart. It is targeted solutions. It supports a cleaner
water for our country. It is strong State leadership. It is better
outcomes for communities. It is locally driven, not federally mandated.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
H.R. 3898 and my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, too much nitrogen and phosphorus in the
water accelerates the growth of harmful levels of algae and bacteria.
We see it firsthand in the Great Lakes every single year with the
formation of algal blooms that are devastating to our Great Lakes,
rivers, and streams. Significant increases in algae harm water quality,
food resources, and habitats, and they decrease the oxygen that fish
and other aquatic life need to survive.
The Clean Water Act has several regulatory and nonregulatory programs
aimed at addressing nutrients, many of which suffer from the lack of
Federal funding to truly make a difference. Adding a redundant program
without funding doesn't help us roll back red tape and streamline
permitting. It only adds to the problem.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Peters

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part A of House Report 119-399.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:

SEC. 22. INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION
AUTHORITY.

(a) Authorization.--The Commission is authorized to accept
funds from a Federal or non-Federal entity, including through
a grant or funding agreement, to study, design, construct,
operate, or maintain wastewater treatment works, water
conservation projects, or flood control works, and related
structures, consistent with the functions of the Commission.
(b) Deposit.--Any funds accepted by the Commission under
this section shall be--
(1) deposited into the account in the Treasury of the
United States entitled ``International Boundary and Water
Commission, United States and Mexico''; and
(2) subject to the availability of appropriations,
available until expended to carry out the activities
described in subsection (a).
(c) Limitations.--
(1) Limit on reimbursement.--The Commission may not provide
credit towards the non-Federal share of the cost of a
project, or reimbursement, to non-Federal entities for funds
accepted under this section in an amount that exceeds a total
of $5,000,000 in any fiscal year.
(2) Source of funds.--The Commission may not accept funds
under this section from any non-Federal entity--
(A) that is domiciled in, headquartered in, or organized
under the laws of, or the principal place of business of
which is located in, a foreign country of concern; or
(B) that has in place any agreement with a foreign country
of concern.
(d) Report.--Not later than the last day of each fiscal
year, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report
on the funds accepted under this section that includes a
description of--
(1) the activities carried out with such funds; and
(2) costs associated with such activities.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Commission'' means the United States Section
of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United
States and Mexico.
(2) The term ``foreign country of concern'' has the meaning
given that term in section 10638 of the Research and
Development, Competition, and Innovation Act (42 U.S.C.
19237).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 936, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment includes the language from my
bill, H.R. 1948, allowing the International Boundary and Water
Commission, or IBWC, to accept up to $5 million per year from other
Federal agencies or outside entities, such as cities, States, and
nonprofit organizations, for wastewater treatment and flood-control
projects like those that would fight the cross-border sewage crisis in
San Diego.

[[Page H5787]]

The IBWC has jurisdiction over the South Bay International Wastewater
Treatment Plant in San Diego, where longstanding operational and
maintenance failures have allowed raw sewage to flow from the Tijuana
River into San Diego's beaches. This has created a public health crisis
that strains local resources, poses significant environmental risks,
and forces our servicemembers to train in polluted sewage water.
Under current law, Federal agencies, State governments, and local
entities cannot transfer funds to projects under IBWC's jurisdiction.
This leaves IBWC reliant on annual appropriations or emergency funding
to build and maintain its facilities.
My office, along with the rest of the San Diego delegation, has
secured $360 million in emergency funding to help address chronic
issues at the South Bay treatment plant. I thank all of the people in
this Chamber who have supported that, including a number of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are veteran Navy SEALs
and have been very concerned about this issue.
This amendment would provide another tool to ensure San Diego does
not need to move from emergency to emergency to secure adequate funding
for the plant. If we can get money from other sources, there is no
reason not to accept it. For some reason, current law prevents us from
accepting even a donation from a nonprofit that would want to help us
with the issue.
Mr. Chair, I say let's get out of the way. H.R. 1948 passed out of
the House on suspension in June of this year, and I hope to see it
become law on any topical legislative vehicle before us. In this case,
our amendment would authorize additional funding sources to further
expedite the completion of clean water projects that fall under IBWC's
jurisdiction. I think it makes sense and is good for everyone.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the support of my colleagues, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, although I claim time in the opposition, I
do not oppose the amendment. I rise, in fact, in support of the
amendment No. 8 offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Peters),
as it would allow the United States section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission, or IBWC as they call it, to receive
additional funding from other Federal and non-Federal partners to
support water and wastewater infrastructure.
This amendment will give the IBWC access to additional funding
sources, enabling it to properly maintain these assets and, in turn,
support cleaner training waters for our warfighters while strengthening
security along our southern border.
This amendment is the same text as H.R. 1948, which was favorably
reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and
passed the House by voice vote earlier this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of my colleague,
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), and the committee. I
urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chair, this is a good amendment. I urge adoption of
it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Rouzer) having assumed the chair, Mr. DesJarlais, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3898) to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make targeted reforms
with respect to waters of the United States and other matters, and for
other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 936, he reported the
bill, as amended pursuant to that resolution, back to the House with
sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The Chair will put the amendments reported from the Committee of the
Whole en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 3898 is postponed.

____________________