Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on January 12, 2026. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 15.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3632 and in favor of addressing the affordability crisis that is crippling the American Dream.

Passing this bill would keep costly, outdated power plants running and stick hardworking American families with the bill.

There is a lot of bluster here in Washington, so let's break this down. What is happening with this bill?

H.R. 3632 gives the Federal Government the power to force power plants to stay open even when local utilities and State regulators themselves have decided that it makes more sense, financially and in terms of efficiency and power, to close them.

It also requires utilities to give years of notice before closing a power plant, giving bureaucrats in Washington and special interests even more chances to step in and overrule local decisions.

When utilities decide to close a power plant, they don't do so on a whim. These decisions come after years of study to make sure that power stays reliable and the bills can stay as low as possible.

H.R. 3632 removes that decisionmaking power, taking it away from the experts and putting it back to bureaucrats in Washington. Instead of trusting local experts, this bill puts decisions in the hands of Washington officials who are far away from their communities.

Utilities are forced to keep running their plants that cost more to operate, and those extra costs are passed on to families and small businesses. Communities should not be told that Washington knows better, especially when the result is more paperwork and higher bills for American families.

We are not talking about hypotheticals here, Mr. Speaker. We have seen this happen firsthand back home in west Michigan. We know what happens when the Federal Government steps in. The J.H. Campbell coal power plant back home in west Michigan was set to close after years of careful planning. I visited the plant. There were just days of coal supply left. They had already had plans for alternative, more efficient power outsourcing to support the grid with a fraction of the size and an even smaller fraction of the pollution and impact on our environment. Everyone was happy until the Trump administration stepped in and said, no, you are going to reopen, and sent our community scrambling.

The plan to close this plant and defuse the power to other cleaner sources would have saved Michigan families $600 million on their power bills. Instead, those savings disappeared, and hardworking Michiganders are paying more every single month.

The President may call the affordability crisis a hoax, but I invite him to come to west Michigan and talk to people who are paying more every single month in their utility bills because of this plan.

H.R. 3632 would make this kind of outcome more common. It allows Federal officials to keep power plants running for years, even when they cost more and even when local leaders say it is not the right choice.

This is not a balanced energy plan. It is a top-down order that raises costs and ignores systems that already work to keep power reliable and affordable.

At a time when families are struggling to pay for groceries, healthcare, and housing, they cannot afford higher energy bills caused by decisions like this from the administration.

For that reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. If the House rules allowed, I would have offered a motion with an amendment that does one simple thing. It would stop this bill from taking effect if it raises costs for everyday Americans.

Think about that. Wouldn't my Republican colleagues across the aisle agree that we shouldn't be introducing these bills until we know if they raise costs? What are we so afraid of?

Allow this amendment because if a bill raises electricity costs, it is the wrong bill. I founded the Lowering Costs Caucus here in Congress to fight against policies like this.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of this amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member for hearing my bill today. It is such a critical piece of legislation.

Those of us from Great Lakes States know how important it is to connect our young people back to the water that surrounds them, to nature, and to get off their phones and into the great outdoors.

I rise today in support of this incredible piece of bipartisan legislation that I cosponsored with another great midwesterner, Rudy Yakym, the Reauthorization of Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act.

This program is an art- and science-based curriculum that educates children on the importance of wetlands and waterfowl conservation. The Junior Duck Stamp curriculum is a program during which students can develop an understanding of waterfowl anatomy and habitats, culminating in the Junior Duck Stamp art competition, where participants may draw or paint a picture of an eligible North American waterfowl species.

The winning image of this contest then goes on to be featured on the Junior Duck Stamp itself, with proceeds of the stamp being redirected to educational activities for the students participating in the program.

As was mentioned, this program has been in existence for 30 years, and the benefits have been proven. This bill will provide an extension of the Junior Duck Stamp program through 2031, empowering our children to learn more about conservation and their world around them. If we do not act today, we could lose all the good that comes from this program.

I am fortunate to come from an outdoorsy household, where we are a camping, hiking, hunting, and fishing family. These experiences have been critical to my own sons, James and Wesley, in their upbringing. The extension of this program will ensure that other households have consistent access to exploring our environment, as well.

We must encourage our children to connect with the environment to understand how to preserve the natural world that makes Michigan and the entire United States such a wonderful place to live. That is what the Junior Duck Stamp program is all about, and I am thrilled to lead this legislation to ensure future generations of children can learn about conservation while tapping into their artistic skills.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back 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, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the remarkable contributions of a woman who needs no introduction, Ms. Erica ``Rikki'' Miller, to our country and to the House of Representatives. For nearly the last decade, Rikki has served with integrity, compassion, and a deep sense of duty. Whether it was driving a Member as a humble staff assistant, enhancing the caucus communications, directing communications on energy policy for a senior Member of Energy and Commerce or helping a brand new freshman establish her office as chief of staff, Rikki approached every task with the same commitment--to make life better for the people we serve.

Rikki's decade of congressional service began as an intern for Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, where she was soon hired full time as constituent relations and press assistant. After two years with Congresswoman Dingell, Rikki joined now Leader Jeffries inaugural leadership team. As their press assistant, Rikki helped plan the Caucus issues conference and lead the Caucus's communication

efforts during the Mueller trials and historic first impeachment. She then spent four years with Congresswoman Kathy Castor as her communications director, where she led the team during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath.

After four years with Congresswoman Castor, Rikki was called back home to Michigan to be chief of staff for my district office. As chief, Rikki helped build the office from the ground up, leading the team through my first term. There, Rikki established herself as a mentor to those in the office, and to other chiefs as well.

Public service isn't always glamorous. It demands patience, perseverance, and quiet strength. There are early mornings, late nights, and countless moments when the work you do goes unnoticed by the world outside. But it's people like Rikki who keep everything running--the unseen hands and steady hearts behind the work we all depend on, whether we realize it or not.

Rikki has been so much more than a House employee, she's been a mentor to new young staff, a colleague, and a friend to all. Rikki lights up any room she walks in. She knows everyone's name and treats everyone the same. She has shared her knowledge generously, guided others through challenges, and shown us what public service truly looks like. Many of us here have learned from her--not just how to do our jobs, but how to do them with purpose.

We will miss Rikki and her steady presence, her joyful spirit, and her years of experience. But we take comfort in knowing that the values she has instilled will continue to guide this workplace in the dozens of new staffers she has trained and inspired. She has left it stronger, kinder, and more resilient than when she arrived.

On behalf of a grateful country, and especially the people of Michigan's 3rd Congressional District, we thank her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of my constituent, Elgin Vines, who turned 90 years old on May 19, 2025. Through the segregation of the Jim Crow South, on stages big and small across the world, Mr Vines' career as a bassist continues to be a bridge in the jazz community--connecting worlds, hearts, and histories.

Born on May 19, 1935, in Suffolk, Virginia, at a time when the odds were not in his favor, Mr. Vines charted a course that was uniquely his own. As a student at Norfolk State University with a Biology/Medical Technology major, Mr. Vines paid his tuition and fees with gigs along the Virginia Beach ``strip,'' before graduating as an ASCP-certified medical technologist. During that time, he was also a member of the house trio on the daily ``Morty Nevins Television Show'' for three years. In his eight-year stint as a bassist for the touring group ``The New Direction,'' Mr. Vines was a guest on national programs like The Tonight Show. He has also played alongside giants like Frank Sinatra Sr. and Jr., the Mills Brothers, and toured on the same circuits as Ella Fitzgerald and Elvis Presley. What Mr. Vines remembers most is not the glitz of the spotlight, but the dignity of people who, like him, believed music could tear down walls.

Mr. Vines moved to West Michigan in 1972, where he married his wife of nearly 52 years, Jackie, and played bass for the Bennie Carew Trio-- quickly becoming an indispensable member of our local music community. Mr. Vines has been a member of the Grand Rapids Symphony Orchestra Jazz Ensemble, played for the Grand Rapids Public Museum and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum, and worked in many local trios. He has gifted his love of jazz to both neighbors and Hollyhock Lane parade-goers for decades. Mr. Vines is more than a bassist. He is a living example of compassion, resilience, and strength.

Mr. Speaker, once more, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Mr. Elgin Vines for his lifelong impact. His rhythm has carried generations, and his soulful steadiness has graced every room he's walked into. I wish him another happy, healthy, and fulfilling year ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize the Kent District Library (KDL) on an extraordinary achievement. KDL's Talking Book & Braille Center has been honored as the 2025 Library of the Year by the National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled, a division of the Library of Congress.

The Library of the Year award recognizes libraries that excel in providing accessible reading materials and services to those with visual, physical, or print disabilities. Libraries receiving this award have a strong effectiveness in reaching these individuals through a wide range of accessible formats, including braille and audio. KDL has incorporated numerous accessible resources, including video magnifiers, adaptive gaming controllers, and wearable artificial-vision devices. Additionally, they have introduced LEGO Braille Brick kits in both English and Spanish.

KDL is a pillar of our community, Year after year, their commitment to academic excellence and innovative programming has helped generations of children and adults to reach their full potential. Their Talking Book & Braille Center has long been a vital resource for West Michiganders who are often underserved in traditional library systems. I am incredibly proud that our very own Kent District Library has set the gold standard.

On behalf of Michigan's 3rd Congressional District, congratulations to those at the Kent District Library's Talking Book & Braille Center who continue to maintain a strong dedication to serving readers with disabilities. This Center has touched the lives of over 750 children and adults across our state. Today and every day, we thank this institution for its lasting impact on our West Michigan community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Paige Kitts. Paige is a member of Girl Scouts of Michigan Shore to Shore, Troop 4504. She has exemplified extraordinary leadership, innovative problem-solving, and a demonstrated commitment to making a lasting, positive impact by earning the most prestigious award in Girl Scouting, the Gold Award.

Gold Award Girl Scouts are recognized as trailblazers who are willing to tackle the most pressing challenges facing their communities with measurable, sustainable, and far-reaching results. To earn the Girl Scout Gold Award, high school-age Girl Scouts must identify and investigate an issue they care about, devise a plan, and then lead a team of experts and community members to implement a project that produces lasting change. Over the course of 1 to 2 years, Gold Award Girl Scouts demonstrate significant initiative, commitment, and leadership, distinguishing them from their peers. Through their resourcefulness and perseverance, they embody the Girl Scout Law to truly make the world a better place.

Paige's project, ``Growing Hope'', in partnership with Growing Roots, addressed the challenge of finding accessible programs and opportunities for those with disabilities in our community. Paige took action by designing and building a wheelchair-accessible garden bed to help existing programs become more inclusive. She created an instruction manual to share with other organizations, providing a supply list, step-by-step instructions for building, and insights regarding the benefits of wheelchair-accessible garden beds. This project will have a positive impact on our community for years to come.

On behalf of Michigan's 3rd Congressional District, congratulations to Paige Kitts for achieving the highest distinction in Girl Scouting, the Gold Award. We thank Paige for her leadership and for making such a positive, enduring change in our community.

Mr. Speaker, due to travel delays, I was unable to vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 193, YEA on Roll Call No. 192, and YEA on Roll Call No. 191.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Adelyn Kim. Adelyn is a member of Girl Scouts of Michigan Shore to Shore, Troop 4255. She has exemplified extraordinary leadership, innovative problem-solving, and a demonstrated commitment to making a lasting, positive impact by earning the most prestigious award in Girl Scouting, the Gold Award.

Gold Award Girl Scouts are recognized as trailblazers who are willing to tackle the most pressing challenges facing their communities and the world with measurable, sustainable, and far-reaching results. To earn the Girl Scout Gold Award, high school-age Girl Scouts must identify and investigate an issue they care about, devise a plan, and then lead a team of experts and community members to implement a project that produces lasting change. Over the course of 1 to 2 years, Gold Award Girl Scouts demonstrate significant initiative, commitment, and leadership, distinguishing them from their peers. Through their resourcefulness and perseverance, they embody the Girl Scout Law to truly make the world a better place.

Adelyn's project, ``The Pink Journal'', in partnership with Community Food Club Grand Rapids, addressed the various stereotypes and misinformation surrounding periods in our community. Adelyn took action by designing and producing digital and printed bilingual period information resources. These resources are being shared throughout West Michigan, which will have a positive impact on our community for years to come.

On behalf of Michigan's 3rd Congressional District, I congratulate Adelyn Kim for achieving the highest distinction in Girl Scouts, the Gold Award. I thank Adelyn for her leadership and for making such a positive, enduring change in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Hannah Davis. Hannah is a member of Girl Scouts of Michigan Shore to Shore, Girl Scout Juliette. She has exemplified extraordinary leadership, innovative problem-solving, and a demonstrated commitment to making a lasting, positive impact by earning the most prestigious award in Girl Scouting, the Gold Award.

Gold Award Girl Scouts are recognized as trailblazers who are willing to tackle the most pressing challenges facing their communities and the world with measurable, sustainable, and far-reaching results. To earn the Girl Scout Gold Award, high school-age Girl Scouts must identify and investigate an issue they care about, devise a plan, and then lead a team of experts and community members to implement a project that produces lasting change. Over the course of 1 to 2 years, Gold Award Girl Scouts demonstrate significant initiative, commitment, and leadership, distinguishing them from their peers. Through their resourcefulness and perseverance, they embody the Girl Scout Law to truly make the world a better place.

Hannah's project, ``Community Sensory Room'', in partnership with Faith Community Church of Coopersville, has greatly improved accessibility resources for individuals with autism, Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Hannah took action by creating a sensory room at her local church, allowing families and children space to stimulate, engage, or relax senses, which will have a positive impact on our community for years to come.

On behalf of Michigan's 3rd Congressional District, I congratulate Hannah Davis for achieving the highest distinction in Girl Scouts, the Gold Award. I thank Hannah for her leadership and for making such a positive, enduring change in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on June 3, 2025. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 146, and YEA on Roll Call No. 147.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tireless efforts of my constituent, Tammy Myers, whose commitment to ensuring fairness in Michigan's surrogacy laws has brought about meaningful change for families across our community and state.

Tammy Myers was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2015, which resulted in procedures that left her unable to have children. In 2021, she and her husband worked with a gestational carrier to have their twin son and daughter. They quickly found themselves facing an unimaginable challenge. Tammy was forced to adopt her own biological twins due to deeply unfair Michigan laws that failed to recognize her as the rightful parent of her children.

Fueled by her personal experience, Tammy became an outspoken advocate for reforming Michigan's antiquated surrogacy laws. Through her persistence and unwavering determination, Tammy helped bring attention to a loophole in state law that left parents like her in legal limbo, forcing many individuals to jump through hoops to be recognized as their biological children's parents.

Tammy's efforts were instrumental in the passage of the Michigan Family Protection Act, which provides legal support and protection for families who have children through surrogacy. Her advocacy shed light on the real-world implications of our outdated legal system and the need for reform as we continue to fight for reproductive freedom across our Nation.

On behalf of Michigan's Third Congressional District, I am proud to honor Tammy Myers for her advocacy and leadership. We thank her for her tireless work in fighting for her children--Eames, Ellison, and Corryn--and the hard-working Michiganders who now have access to the essential resources they need to start a family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary milestone--the 50th anniversary of Grand Valley State University's long-standing partnership with the Krakow University of Economics in Poland. For five decades, these two institutions have stood as a shining example of the power and promise of international collaboration in higher education, and I could not be prouder of the great work they have achieved together.

GVSU is a pillar of our community. Year after year, their commitment to academic excellence and innovation has led generations of students to reach their full potential. With a dedication to fostering global understanding, GVSU has always known the importance of offering students opportunities that extend beyond our borders, and they have worked tirelessly to connect their students with experiences that broaden their global understanding. This is why their partnership with the Krakow University of Economics is so meaningful--a true testament to their mission.

This partnership began in 1975, at a time when the United States and Poland shared more differences than they did similarities. Still, they came together with a mission to educate, building a strong connection based on mutual respect and a shared goal of helping students grow through global learning. Over the course of 50 years, their partnership has helped foster not only academic excellence, but cultural exchange and understanding between our two nations. As our world becomes more interconnected than ever, this partnership continues to serve as a shining example of what can be achieved when we come together to learn and grow from each other.

On behalf of Michigan's Third Congressional District, congratulations to those at both Grand Valley State University and the Krakow University of Economics who have maintained this collaboration over the years. This partnership has touched the lives of countless students, faculty, and communities across the globe. Today and every day, we thank both institutions for their lasting impact on the communities they serve.