Maintaining Cooperative Permitting Act of 2025

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

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.

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. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the esteemed ranking member of this committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Pou).

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

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.

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:

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the great State of California (Ms. Matsui).

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).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth).

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

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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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

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.

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. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. Chair, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 2.

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. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

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.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona.

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. 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.

Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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. 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.

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).

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.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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.

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

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.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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.

Mr. Chair, I think we have made the case here. We

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), who is the Western Caucus chairman.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Shreve).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Patronis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hurd).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

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.

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.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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.

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.

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.