▶ 0:15:30I call the committee on transportation infrastructure to order. Pursuant to committee rule 6F and house rule 11 clause 2HF. The chairman may postpone further proceedings today on any question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment in which a recorded vote of the excuse me yays and nays are requested. I'd ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's meeting without objection. That is so ordered.
▶ 0:15:57A bill and amendment text have been distributed electronically and paper copies are also available here in the hearing room. As a reminder, the committee may use an electronic voting system for any requested or recorded votes. Today, the committee is considering an amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 that promoting efficiency review for modern infrastructure today act or the permit act. Finally, I'd ask unanimous consent for the committee to use an amendments roster for any items under consideration by the committee without objection.
▶ 0:16:28That is so ordered. item for consideration is HR 3898, the permit act, and I ask unanimous consent to discharge the committee subcommittee on water resources and environment from further consideration of HR 3898. And without objection, that is so ordered. I now call up the bill for consideration. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill is now considered as read and open for amendment at any point. I now recognize Mr.
▶ 0:16:57Collins to offer his amendment in the nature of a substitute. Thank you, Chairman Graves. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. Please designate. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read and shall be considered as a base text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize Mr. Collins for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:17:24As the chairman of the water resources and environment subcommittee, I'm proud to offer and support the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 3898, the promoting efficiency review for modern infrastructure today act or the permit act. This legislation represents a comprehensive package of common sense improvements to the clean water acts permitting processes.
▶ 0:17:48processes that have come to stop American innovation in energy and infrastructure projects rather than balance the goals of encouraging economic activity with protecting clean water. For over 50 years, the Clean Water Act has functioned to improve the quality of our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. While the act has had many successes in these 50 years, there are now many reasons to modernize the legislation in order to achieve the balance of promoting commerce and ensuring our water is clean.
▶ 0:18:18The a this ANS represents a suite of targeted reforms to the Clean Water Act which taken together will codify practices that have improved permitting, clarify aspects of the law to protect against frivolous lawsuits and provide greater regulatory certainty. I want to thank all of my colleagues on the committee who brought their ideas to the table which you will see combined together in this ANS. I want to take a moment to talk about three standalone bills that I introduced which have been included.
▶ 0:18:49First, the bill includes my provision codifying longstanding exclusions from the definition of waters of the United States or WUS. While WUS has long been a contiguous topics, these exclusions have been supported for decades by Republican and Democratic uh administrations alike.
▶ 0:19:09Also included is my bill codifying the Environmental Protection AY's practice of issuing general permits under the section 402 point source discharge system. This provision provides additional regulatory certainty for those who rely on these permits by requiring EPA to reissue the general permits or provide two years notice if the agency does not plan to reissue.
▶ 0:19:33Finally, the package includes my bill requiring EPA to take into account whether technology needed to comply with its requirements is actually commercially available in the United States. Unfortunately, the Biden administration produced a rule updating the affluent limitation guidelines for steam powered plants uh that relied on experimental Chinese data and technology that may not be trustworthy, is not available in the United States, and would put great economic strain on such power plants that would be passed
▶ 0:20:03on to the rate payers. This is just another example of how the Clean Water Act has been weaponized and how in this package, common sense prevails. All year at TNI committees, we have been focused on the theme, America builds.
▶ 0:20:20However, burdensome regulatory processes and frivolous lawsuits from radical environmentalists that take advantage of well-meaning legislation like the Clean Water Act and our judicial system represents some of the biggest roadblocks for America to build. The bottom line is that without reforming the Clean Water Act, America cannot effectively build roads, bridges, pipelines, ports, dams, levies, airports, homes, farms, or other infrastructure.
▶ 0:20:49We need to put America first in the 21st century. Once again, I thank Chairman Graves and all of my colleagues who have worked on this package. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back my time. I now recognize Mr. Larson for his statement. Thank you, Chair Graves and Chair Collins and uh uh for bringing this uh bill uh to the committee. Um for unfortunately, I am going to oppose the legislation oppose the ANS.
▶ 0:21:15Members of this committee of both sides of the aisle support efficiency and predictability in our nation's regulatory programs. Unfortunately, the changes that this bill makes go far beyond promoting efficiency and predictability. The Clean Water Act is the nation's bedrock environmental law for restoring and maintaining our nation's waters.
▶ 0:21:34HR 3898 weakens the act by gutting the authority the federal agencies of federal agencies to minimize the impact that projects have on water resources and undermining the authority of states and tribes to protect locally important water bodies. I oppose the bill because it will make it much more difficult to keep water clean. This bill significantly restricts federal oversight and regulatory authorities under the Clean Water Act.
▶ 0:21:59When paired with the efforts of the administration to slash federal funding for clean water and purge agency staff, the changes proposed in this bill leave federal agencies powerless to fulfill the responsibilities under the law. The bill undermines the cooperative federal uh cooperative federalism partnership that the federal government has with states and tribes to prevent pollution, weakening state and tribal ability to defend local water bodies.
▶ 0:22:26Simply put, this bill makes it easier to release harmful and toxic pollution into nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and other water bodies through loopholes, legal shields, and limited oversight of polluters. Democrats want to pass bills that invest in infrastructure and get projects done faster. That's why we voted for and passed the bipartisan infrastructure law, the BIL, and invested in all types of infrastructure for communities nationwide.
▶ 0:22:52Fully funding these projects and the federal agencies charged with approving them is the quickest way to get infrastructure built. Instead, this bill, when paired with the administration's efforts to defund federal and state agencies, as well as other federal infrastructure programs, all that will slow down the permitting process and slow down critical investments in cleaner, greener, safer, and more accessible state and local projects.
▶ 0:23:16Taken together, the changes in HR 3898 will substantially weaken federal, state, and local efforts to restore, maintain, and clean up local water bodies. Under this bill, communities of all sizes, especially rural, minority, and economically disadvantaged communities, will end up with dirtier water because someone determine the cost of clean water is simply too high.
▶ 0:23:37At the same time, the bill increases the likelihood that families will have to spend spend more for safe drinking water for their homes to and access water related recreational areas if such resources are still available. There is another way. We don't have to choose between clean water and a robust economy. My state itself is defined by its clean water, including the health of the Puget Sound and the hundreds of lakes and thousands of miles of rivers and streams throughout the state.
▶ 0:24:04People in my state know that rivers, streams, and wetlands are intrinsically connected. The health of Washington state's waters and its water related economy depends on a strong partnership with the federal government and a level playing field among its upstream and downstream neighbors, including tribal lands. So, I look forward to working with my colleagues on bipartisan and effective legislation to upgrade our infrastructure, build our economy, and create jobs while protecting our waters. So, I oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same. And with that, yield back.
▶ 0:24:36Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. We are Let me speak on this legislation that we're marking up today. represents what I believe is an important step towards bringing sanity to our nation's water permitting system.
▶ 0:24:51The Permit Act makes significant reforms that remove burdensome regulations, increase the ability of regulated entities to comply with the law, prevent lawfare by radical ideologically driven organizations, increases certainty by allowing for longer permits, and increases transparency.
▶ 0:25:11One of the most important fixes is amending the Clean Water Act to ensure that technologies, the technologies required by a permit actual actually exist and are commercially available in the United States.
▶ 0:25:24And I'm privy because of a former vocation of seeing some of the requirements where it literally says beyond the limits of technology, but yet somehow the taxpayers are supposed to pay for and somebody's supposed to provide something that is acknowledged as beyond the limits of technology. It is absurd on its face, yet it exists.
▶ 0:25:46By removing requirements that are based on fantasy, pure fantasy, we are allowing folks to actually abide by the law while continuing to be able to operate and provide the services that our society demands and deserves.
▶ 0:26:02Another critical fix is limiting the scope of section 401 permits to actual water quality issues, ensuring that states don't abuse section 401 to kill reliable hydrocarbon projects that power this nation.
▶ 0:26:18And I will remind everybody today, you should look at the app at about I don't know 6 6:00 this afternoon for the PJM, Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland interconnect to see how close we are to shutting down the power grid because of wrongheaded ideas and the pursuit of something that actually doesn't exist.
▶ 0:26:38If we live in the 21st century in America and we should be able to produce power in sufficient quantity that we can all stay cool in the summertime and stay warm in the wintertime and turn the lights on without fear of having blackouts. a megawatt was $5,000 at that time. $5,000.
▶ 0:27:04So effectively, if you were paying the rate to charge your Tesla, where you were paying $500 to charge your Tesla because of wrongheaded ideas. And this is one of the things that this legislation seeks to fix.
▶ 0:27:18These critical pieces along with other common sense reforms made in this bill will significantly improve the permitting process for regulated This will help drive down the cost of homes, businesses, and commerce, helping to alleviate the regulatory red tape that contributes to inflation, all while powering and providing services to our country and our community that are clean and reliable.
▶ 0:27:45I support this legislation and urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the sake of sanity and reality to do the same. And I yield, Mr. Mindy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had not intended to speak at this moment, but uh I can always count on Scott to get me going. Unfortunately, he's leaving.
▶ 0:28:12Um embedded in his uh most recent screed uh are some very useful thoughts uh with regard to this afternoon and the possibility of a U. blackout. The issue is not the production of power but the where is the power produced and the interties from that power into those parts of the nation where uh there is insufficiency.
▶ 0:28:42Unfortunately, the U one big ugly bill does terminate much of the infrastructure program that was created some four years ago that would provide money for the inner ties so that where power is available uh for example here in the uh east coast uh it can move from the available power to where there is a shortage of power and so there are ways to solve these problems.
▶ 0:29:12Embedded in this bill are some really uh important issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, it looks as though I was as though we might go back to the wetlands issue which consumed this committee for almost six years in the Biden and then following in the first Trump administration been pretty well settled. I'm concerned that the bill in its present form is going to revisit that entire um pro program.
▶ 0:29:41I would hope we don't go there. There are many other things that are the bill attempts to address problems, but it does it in a way far more and far in a way that actually will um pollution. So I would ask this committee to be more thoughtful as we have been. I understand why this bill is moving. It's it's part of the political agenda.
▶ 0:30:08But this committee has always tried to produce legislation that addresses real problems in a way that does not create additional problems. For example, more pollution. Unfortunately, the legislation doesn't do that. I'm going to speak to a couple of amendments that I have uh and a couple of examples a little later, but I would just urge us to u I know the bill's going to pass and we're gonna stamp our feet and we're going to say, "Oh my god, the world's coming to an end." Uh it's not.
▶ 0:30:36The bill didn't clear the Senate last session, probably won't this session or shouldn't, but embedded in the bill are I are problems that need to be thoughtfully addressed. Unfortunately, we're not going there. I'll catch Mr. Perry uh back in the coffee shop and uh suggest that he may be wrong on a few things. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. I yield back. Mr. Rouseer, thank you uh Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:31:04I'm proud to support this muchneeded uh effort to modernize our nation's water permitting system. It reflects years of feedback from stakeholders across the country, including farmers, builders, state officials, energy producers, and local communities who have long said the same thing. A Clean Water Act is foundational, but the permitting process built around it has become too slow, too unpredictable, and too vulnerable to abuse.
▶ 0:31:31So, I want to thank Chairman Graves, water resources and environment subcommittee chairman Collins and many members of the committee who have worked to develop today's package. Also appreciate the inclusion of several bills that I have authored over the years. The n uh the nationwide permitting improvement act, the reducing regulatory burdens act, and the improving water quality certifications and American energy infrastructure act. Each of these measures address well doumented breakdowns in our nation's permitting process.
▶ 0:32:01Breakdowns that delay critical projects, drive up cost, and do nothing to improve actual water quality. The Nationwide Permitting Improvement Act codifies and strengthens long-standing practices by the Army Corps of Engineers for nationwide permits. For decades, these permits have helped move infrastructure and energy projects forward in a timely and responsible manner. However, we've seen recent legal and administrative efforts to chip away at this process, not through new laws, but reinterpretation.
▶ 0:32:31This bill protects the permitting framework and ensures it can't be dismantled based on ideology or political pressure. The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act is a common sense clarification to eliminate a duplicative regulatory process at the EPA for the use of pesticides, saving taxpayer money and reducing regulatory burdens on pesticide users while maintaining the same level of environmental protection.
▶ 0:32:58Pesticides already undergo rigorous environmental review under FIFRA and when used as approved should not trigger an an additional layer of clean water act permitting. This alleviates so this bill alleviates pressure on farmers, local governments and pest control professionals while still preserving environmental safeguards. The improving water quality certifications in American Infrastructure Act restores integrity and purpose to section 401 water quality certification process.
▶ 0:33:29Section 401 has unfortunately become a veto tool for unrelated environmental or political concerns weaponize to block or delay projects for years at a time while citing no actual impact to water quality.
▶ 0:33:43This bill puts clear parameters around what states can consider, how long they have to act, and what information is required so the process is transparent, accountable, and focused on its original goal, protecting water quality, not advancing environmental agendas. Together, this package reflects a philosophy I think we can all support. Clear rules and predictable timelines while maintaining positive environmental outcomes. That's the right balance. That's what we should be achieving for.
▶ 0:34:13For too long, that that balance has tilted away from good governance and towards bureaucratic paralysis. So, if we want to build American infrastructure, strengthen our energy independence, and support our communities while protecting clean water, these kinds of reforms are quite frankly essential. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reforming the permitting process under the Clean Water Act is an important step for American industry.
▶ 0:34:43American farmers, builders, energy producers, water utilities, and much more have been hamstrung by burdensome political regulatory regulations. As an example, dredging projects in my district would be put on hold or even denied under the guidance of the Clean Water Act before they were officially submitted, putting the economy and our security on hold. In instances where the project was not flatout rejected, an agency would go to court for decades.
▶ 0:35:13Just this past Friday, I was informed that a company that had been trying to build a facility in my district for the last 15 years finally ended up getting its court case settled. Let me repeat, 15 years of court battles just to build a facility. This has got to change. I want to thank Congressman Collins for his bold leadership in drafting this bill and the chairman and his staff for bringing it forward today. Thank you all for leading the fight on this permitting reform. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr.
▶ 0:35:44Herd, thank you very much. Uh, Chairman Graves, I am proud to co-sponsor the Permit Act, which is common sense legislation that will help get America building key infrastructure projects more quickly. I'm particularly grateful that my legislation, the Jurisdictional Determination Backlog Reduction Act, is part of this critical reform package. Americans rely on timely permitting determinations to decide how to proceed on their projects.
▶ 0:36:10Unfortunately, the US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determination process has failed to meet that timely standard. The core is current currently sitting on a backlog of over 3,500 jurisdictional determinations and wetlands delineations Project owners and land owners rely on these determinations to know whether or not their project sites contain navigable waters and are thus subject to section 404 clean water act permitting requirements.
▶ 0:36:39This backlog puts projects related to road construction, water resources, and energy development and agricultural operations in limbo. My proposal requires the core to expedite procedures and utilize resources necessary to clear this backlog so that project owners can receive the determinations that they need in order to proceed.
▶ 0:37:01I appreciate the work that Chairman Graves, Chairman Collins, and the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee staff have put into crafting a bill that cuts red tape, streamlines burdensome and duplicative review processes, and provides Colorado farmers and ranchers, utility providers, builders, and communities with regulatory certainty. I look forward to helping advance this critical bill. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Start. Thank you, Chairman Graves.
▶ 0:37:32Our permitting system is a great burden to our nation. Permitting delays infrastructure projects indefinitely and stops us from bringing critical energy sources online. It also deters investment in our communities. Make no mistake, permitting is holding America back. HR 3898, the promoting efficiency review for modern infrastructure today act, also known as the permit act, aims to unleash the American economy.
▶ 0:37:59It is a package of common sense reforms that will reduce regulatory burdens, establish certainty and increase transparency in our permitting system. This bill will in turn create opportunities for homebuilders, farmers, loggers, and small business owners alike, enticing them to invest in projects that help our local communities grow. I'd like to highlight section 12 of HR 3898.
▶ 0:38:26Section 12 is the language of my bill, the Reducing Permitting Uncertainty Act. Section 404C of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to veto a dredge and fill permit.
▶ 0:38:40However, the EPA has taken it upon itself to proactively reject permits and retroactively take away In our country, it is absurd that a government bureaucrat or agency can dictate whether a project is good or bad even before an application is filed. And the fact that the government can waltz in and shut down years of hard work is staggering.
▶ 0:39:08This section of HR 3898 is not a dramatic departure from the status quo. It just clarifies a timeline. When an application is pending, the EPA can make a determination on whether to veto. Simple. It does not alter the process, nor does it take away the EPA's right to veto. It returns our process to one that is science and factbased rather than political.
▶ 0:39:35I would like to thank Congressman Collins for his great efforts on this package of reforms. And I yield back. Mr. Shri. Uh, thank you, Chairman Graves, and thank you to my colleague, Representative Collins, who literally has my back on this committee for his leadership on this package of common sense clean water uh act reforms.
▶ 0:39:59I was thankful that my bill uh HR 3934, the Water Quality Standards Attainability Act, was included in section two of this package. Uh put simply, my bill maintains state leadership in setting their own water quality standards in the clean water act. Uh my first my legislation will ensure that the long-term control plans developed on combined sewer out overflow systems csos are considered by states as they update and modify their water quality standards.
▶ 0:40:29These long-term plans guide up upgrades and investments, sometimes major investments for our communities with the goal of mitigating overflows. Longstanding EPA CSO policy has directed states to review and modify existing water quality standards while municipalities are developing and implementing their own long-term control plans. But this has largely has largely not occurred.
▶ 0:40:53Sometimes the progress has even been reversed by EPA bure bureaucrats, leaving communities that have invested millions in their systems with little or no progress toward the Clean Water Act compliance. For example, back in my home state of Indiana, um we've successfully made two targeted changes to our water quality standards uh for Indianapolis, which I represent, and Fort Wayne. These were rolled back by the EPA in early 2024.
▶ 0:41:21The water quality standards set by the states must represent and consult with the communities they regulate and not be subject to the varying whims of bureaucrats here in DC. Second, my bill requires states to take into consideration the cost and commercial availability of treatment technologies that permit holders may be required to use to maintain compliance with these standards. We want permitted entities under the Clean Water Act to actually be able to make compli maintain compliance uh with their permits.
▶ 0:41:52This is a simple to help achieve that goal. All of us on this committee, all of us on this committee support clean water for our communities, but when regulations are not attainable, we all suffer. This provision will support clean water in our communities while also supporting economic development. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Taylor.
▶ 0:42:14Thank you, Chairman Graves, for allowing me to speak in favor of Congressman Collins's excellent bill, the Permit Act, in which my bill, the Confidence and Clean Water Permits Act, is included. Permit holders, including businesses that provide good paying jobs to Americans, should not have to worry about frivolous lawsuits when they comply with the terms of their permits. My bill, the Confidence and Clean Water Permits Act, would provide much neededed clarity and protection to permit holders who are acting in good faith to comply with their required permits.
▶ 0:42:41The Supreme Court's recent ruling in the case of San Francisco versus EPA, we have seen how generic language in the NPTES permits can cause uncertainty for permit holders. This uncertainty discourages growth and production in the United States, showing that congressional action is needed to ensure we are promoting American businesses first.
▶ 0:43:01This legislative package contains additional items that I am proud to support, including Congressman Rouseer's reducing regulatory burdens act, which would eliminate duplicative regulatory processes, and also Representative Crawford's Fuels Act, which would ease burdens on America's farmers and ranchers seeking to store more fuel. Passage of this bill is essential to help grow industry in the United States. I want to thank Congressman Collins for leading this effort to remove unnecessary and duplicative regulations that have hindered growth for decades.
▶ 0:43:31And I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Owens Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In Utah, we know how important water is for our families, our farmers, and our future.
▶ 0:43:57Just last week, I visited Utah Lake and discussed the work being done to protect and restore this great resource. It is clear our communities care about good water policies. Unfortunately, too many don't have the voice when decisions are made here in DC. Presently, the EPA can issue water quality criteria uh shaping how NISPA permits are written without any transparency or public input.
▶ 0:44:21By bureaucratic slight of hand, calling this process guidance, the agency avoids proper rulemaking and blocks local communities from having any say or seeking a review. This bill fix that. It brings the the process into the open. It simply ensures public input, accountability, and fairness. So the decisions about the community's water aren't made behind closed doors, but by unelected Washington bureaucrats. I'm proud I'm proud to support this bill and I encourage my colleagues to vote yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:44:50I'll yield Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill to address overregulation currently in place, and I really appreciate Representative Collins's leadership. I'm proud that the bill I sponsored, Restoring Federalism and the Clean Water Permitting Act, has become part of this vital legislation.
▶ 0:45:14In doing these things, we will encourage states to exercise their rights to administer the 404 permitting program. In Florida, I hear from people all the time that communities preferred it when the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ran the program. When Florida's permitting ability got stripped away from by stripped away the Army Corps of Engineers could not manage the workload, I doubt a state like California could run this program. But in Florida, we know how to get things done.
▶ 0:45:44Florida had its rights stripped away from it by being sued by far-left crazies who hate normal progress, including simple things like building schools. This is just another example of the courts being weaponized by rogue judges, which is the opposite of I want to thank Representative Aaron Beam for working so hard on this issue. And again, special thanks to Chair Mike Collins for leading this charge. Thank you to my chairman.
▶ 0:46:13Thank you, Chairman Graves and my fellow members, stakeholders, and most importantly, committee staff and everyone that has done such hard work to advance this bill. I yield back. Mr. Burlson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you along with Chairman Collins for bringing common sense back to this issue.
▶ 0:46:36I want to highlight the portion of the that has my bill, the judicial review timeline clarity act, which is included in section 14 of this vital permitting reform package. The legislation takes a critical step towards ending the weaponization of section 404 of the Clean Water Act by partisan environmentalist nuts. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates dumping dredge and fill materials into the waters of the USA or Wus.
▶ 0:47:04It sounds straightforward, but the vague wus definition has been exploited by environmentalists, activists, and bureaucrats to claim that every ditch and every puddle on your land is federal property, which is hogwash. Even after the 2023 Sacket versus EPA decision sought to limit Wus' overreach, the permitting process remains a bureaucratic maze.
▶ 0:47:28Activists use litigation to stall projects for years targeting farmers, small businesses, and critical infrastructure projects. These are not environmental champions. They are anti-growth zealots who lock up land and drain wallets. And the damage is in the billions.
▶ 0:47:48installed infrastructure, farmers scared to plow, small businesses crushed, and endless litigation that wastes resources that could clean real rivers and restore actual wetlands. The the Judicial Review Timeline Clarity Act offers a fair common sense solution.
▶ 0:48:07It establishes a 60-day window to challenge section 404 permits after the after the co core of engineers grants The days of the environmental left waiting for years to ambush projects with frivolous lawsuits are over. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act should protect waters, not punish hardworking Americans.
▶ 0:48:29The Judicial Review Time like Clarity Act cuts through the red tape, ends bureaucratic overreach, and restores sanity and common sense to the permitting project. And I want to again thank the chairman, Chairman Graves and Chairman Collins for their hard work on this. and I urge my colleagues to support this and I yield Mr. Lamafa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
▶ 0:48:55Thank you for including my bill, the Forest Protection and Wildland Fire Safety Act of 2025 in the amendment to Nature Substitute that we're Between 2013 and 2024, more than 15 million acres have burned in forest and wildland fires in California, just my home state. To put that in perspective, over that 11-year period, more than 15% of California's land mass has burned. California, for of course, is a huge state. In my district, we've had four of the five largest fires in state history.
▶ 0:49:252020, the August Complex fire burned more than a million acres. The 2021 Dixie fire was right at a million acres. The smoke plume was so intense it even hit the east coast here and caused people to have uh don't go outside days in some of our eastern The 2024 Park Fire burned almost half a million acres in several counties in Northern California. The Mendescino Complex fire burned nearly a half a million acres in 2018. The fires are deadly.
▶ 0:49:55In 2018, the campfire destroyed most of the town of Paradise, killing 85 people in the process and 18,000 structures. When a fire starts, it's critical that we tackle with every possible measure, every possible tool, so we can at least hold back massive fires that don't have to spread needlessly. One such critically important tool to help keep our region somewhat safe from catastrophic fires is aery aerally applied fire retardants by the Forest Service and others.
▶ 0:50:25However, in 2022, environmental activists sued the Forest Service in federal court for failing to obtain a NEP, a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit under the Clean Water Act to use aerial fire retardants, retardants that had been used already for years. The court agreed and required the Forest Service to obtain a a NEP permit from the EPA. Thankfully, the court did not prohibit the Forest Service from continuing to use the error applied fire retardant while the EPA works through a process on a permit.
▶ 0:50:56If granted, an injunction would have put millions of uh square miles, excuse me, in the West at risk of being lost to catastro catastrophic fires by removing an effective measure used by Forest Service and others to fight fires. Can you imagine taking away this fire retardant tool and being left was just you being able to use basically misters. By the time water comes out of an aircraft and is dispersed over a hot fire, you basically have a mister system.
▶ 0:51:24My bill does not negatively affect the Clean Water Act, nor does it undermine protections for clean water. Biden administration officials from the Forest Service testified on the version of my bill last Congress and said the Forest Service believes NIP desk permit is not needed for the use of airly applied fire retardant based on EPA guidance it received way back in 2003.
▶ 0:51:46The Forest Service 2011 Nationwide aerial application of fire retardant on national forest systems lands record of decision already prohibits the discharge of retardants into bodies of water and buffer zones. They have wide buffer zones about around bodies of water already in place. That's the practice. So over the last 10 years, less than 1% of retardant drops even touched or impacted any kind of a waterway.
▶ 0:52:14These officials also testify that will take likely take the EPA up to three years to issue a permit and then 47 states likely will have to issue their own permits and sign off on the EPA ter permit. So as they currently have the delegated authority under the Clean Water Act. So it'll take even more time for 47 states to have to go through that. We're talking years before all the permits are needed that they're needed will be done due to this court ruling had they not allowed it to be used in the interim.
▶ 0:52:43It would of course be a logistical nightmare for Forest Service and other firefighters to somewhat effectively and efficiently combat fires with this needed retardant. Of course, that's unacceptable. So, my bill would included in this amendment simply exempts the application of aerial fire requirements on the qualified products list by the Forest Service from needing this permit, building on an already existing exemption for silver culture activities already in the Clean Water Act.
▶ 0:53:12Retardants on the qualified products list have already been studied and approved for use by the Forest Service and have been placed for decades. Many of you know my work to improve forest management, reduce risks of fire. But I think Forest Service officials actually summed it up well, saying, and I'll quote, "errory delivered long-term fire retardant is part of an integrated firefighting strategy and is an essential tool the Forest Service and inter agency community uses in support of groundbased firefighting resources.
▶ 0:53:42If Forest Service is only able to use water from air tankers, our ability to successfully suppress fires would be significantly impacted. We believe retardant can be and has been delivered without compromising public health or the environment. End quote. It's a common sense bill that ensures firefighters hands are not tied and they can use every safe, effective, and efficient measure to try and put out fires to keep our areas safe from rampant wildfire. So, I want to thank Chairman Collins and our committee chairman, Mr.
▶ 0:54:10Graves for their support for including my bill in this amendment and urge my colleagues to support this and our HR 3898. I yield back the balance for my time. Thank you, Miss Wilson. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last Access to clean, safe water should not be a privilege. It's a basic human right.
▶ 0:54:38But too many communities across this country, particularly those that are rural, minority, lowincome, or tribal, still face unequal protection when it comes to water, public health, and environmental safety. The permit act, as amended, would make changes to how we evaluate and approve major infrastructure projects.
▶ 0:55:06It shortens environmental reviews, limits public restricts judicial oversight, and accelerates decisions that directly affect our air, our land, and our water. Yes, we all want to improve efficiency and avoid unnecessary delays, but not at the expense of oversight, accountability, and the health of our communities.
▶ 0:55:36That's why I've introduced an amendment to create a report to Congress on any disproportionate impacts this bill may have on disadvantaged communities, specifically impacts the health, the environment, and local economies. I urge my members to vote no on the underlying bill, and I yield back, Mr. Chair. Miss Sykes. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:56:05Chair, and thank you for uh all my colleagues for being here to talk about a very important issue, water. Uh I liken water to life. Water is life, and if we don't have clean water, our lives will be negatively impacted in serious and significant ways. The Clean Water Act in its birth partially came from my community in my area in Northeast Ohio when people didn't even realize it was possible for a body of water to catch on fire.
▶ 0:56:37Many decades later, we are continuing to fight the battles to ensure we don't see another mistake on the lake in Ohio or anywhere else in this country. And the bill that we are marking up today is going to take us backwards. Many people don't remember or maybe like me weren't even born when uh the Kyoga River caught on fire. But the legacy of that remains in Northeast Ohio and throughout the country.
▶ 0:57:05And it is why it is so necessary for us generation after generation to ensure that we are doing the work that is necessary to protect our waterways, our tributaries, our oceans. Uh because water is life. It is a significant part of our tourism. It is a significant part of our economy and it is how we nourish ourselves in our communities. Having water helps to build development.
▶ 0:57:30Communities who are looking for housing want water hookups, sewer lines, but they also want it to be clean and safe and portable. And I want to make sure and I think as you hear the amendments from myself and my colleagues on this side of the aisle, we are committed to ensuring that people have access to clean water, clean, affordable water so that they can live their American dreams, wherever that might be. Now, I say the best place to live your American dream is in Ohio's 13th Congressional District.
▶ 0:57:58But if you happen to choose to be someplace else, that's fine as well. But we want to make sure wherever you are, you have access to clean and affordable water. And this bill does not get us there. And so I encourage my colleagues to really be thoughtful about how we are approaching clean water and not undermine our ability for life because water truly is life. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield Does anyone else wish to be heard?
▶ 0:58:26Seeing no one, we're now considering the bill for amendment. And I have an amend manager's amendment at the desk. Please designate a manager's amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by chairman Graves. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. I obviously support uh this manager's amendment package. First, the manager's amendment includes some technical fixes to the underlying bill.
▶ 0:58:56Further, the manager's amendment provides additional clarity for section 401 process, a legislative change that was championed by Mr. Stabber as well as clarifying changes to the state assumption process under section 404 uh which was led by Mr. Peterronis. Finally, the manager's amendment provides additional direction to states on coordinating clean water act processes with the federal permitting improvement steering council which is an initiative spearheaded by Mr. Johnson.
▶ 0:59:25I'd urge my colleagues to uh join me in supporting the manager's amendment. And with that, I yield back. Uh Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I oppose the manager's amendment. The amendment does make technical changes to the technology review requirements for determining the appropriate level of treatment for the discharge of pollutants into waters. Like the base bill, this amendment tells communities of all sizes, especially rural, minority, and economically disadvantaged communities, that clean water is simply too costly for them to have.
▶ 0:59:53This amendment also incorporates the text of two amendments filed individually by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. First one, modifying language in the underlying bill related to state assumption of wetland programs. It does not, however, address the fact that language reduces judicial review when states assume Second amendment continues to undermine the partnership between federal and state agencies to protect clean water.
▶ 1:00:15The underlying bill pulls the rug out from under states and engage in the cooperative federalism that has made the Clean Water Act successful for over a half a century. The manager's amendment does not improve the bill. It does not defend the states uh state's authorities to protect their waters for public health and environment. So I do oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same without a yield back. Mr. Stabber. Thank you, Chairman Graves.
▶ 1:00:40My amendment which is included in the MA manager's amendment addresses a pressing and topical issue. For the first time in the history of the Clean Water Act, the United States Army Corps convened a section 401 A2 hearing between the EPA and a project sponsor in northern Minnesota.
▶ 1:00:59New Range Copper Nickel is proposing a copper, nickel, cobalt, and platinum group metal mining project in my district and has purchased an existing brownfield site used by an iron mining company to develop muchneeded critical minerals for our 21st century economy.
▶ 1:01:16For those that don't know, my district alone accounts for 95% of America's nickel, 88% of America's cobalt, 75% of our platinum, and more than onethird of our copper.
▶ 1:01:33Northern Minnesota has the resources, mining expertise, and workforce to be the mineral supplier for a wide range of products, including fighter jet targeting systems, wind turbines, transmission lines, MRI machines, and much more. Believe it or not, Mr. Chair, New Range has been in permitting and litigation for over 20 years.
▶ 1:01:57The company signed a project labor agreement years ago with the Iron Range building construction trades. They have won every single lawsuit brought against them. In fact, the water to be recycled by New Range is so clean that it has to be remmineralized every time.
▶ 1:02:19Unfortunately, former President Biden chose to remand a Clean Water Act permit granted to New Range when he was vice president under the Obama administration. And he weaponized the EPA to force the Army Corps to hold the section 401A2 hearing.
▶ 1:02:42What is particularly frustrating is that it took nearly a year from the initial decision to use this statute to actually hold a hearing. Just a neverending cycle of delays and uncertainty for my northern Minnesota mining communities. Therefore, my amendment simply requires the federal government and the state to agree to a timeline for the hearing with a project sponsor.
▶ 1:03:13This will simply make the process a little less ambigu there won't be as much ambiguity rather in this process. I thank the chairman for including this amendment in the manager's amendment and I urge adoption of the manager's amendment and I yield back. Do Mr.
▶ 1:03:34I want to commend the um my colleague on his ongoing effort to find a way to continue the mining uh in his region in a way that uh would be not harm the environment. you made major uh progress in that and I commend you for that.
▶ 1:03:53I'm concerned however with your particular amendment and and this applies to many of the amendments well the text of the bill itself and to some of the amendments that are going to be Um, this legislation relies upon other to be successful and specifically the U amendment at hand relies upon an EPA and an Army Corps of Engineers that are fully staffed.
▶ 1:04:24Unfortunately, in other legislation and efforts uh by the Doge boys and Musk, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA are staff are gutted. Army Cor of Engineers lose somewhere between 25 and 30% of their staff. Uh the EPA is even more gutted and the staff isn't there.
▶ 1:04:49So much of this legislation that uh is being proposed here doesn't work because there's nobody home. And I think we need to broaden our perspective beyond the specific elements of this legislation and look at what is actually happening to our government and the um programs and personnel that we rely upon to protect us and to timely and
▶ 1:05:20uh move legislation, excuse me, move um regulation. Uh it's a big picture and for my colleagues on the Republican side, I would urge them to take a look at the total system.
▶ 1:05:37Uh the legislation that's being proposed here relies upon a system that may no longer exist as a result of the extraordinary cuts in personnel that have taken place already and even more to come in the big ugly bill.
▶ 1:05:53excuse me, the big beautiful bill uh that is now being worked on in the Senate and will eventually find its way back to the We live in a complex world of which there are many moving pieces and to take one piece as we are today and assume that it is going to be effective although I would disagree with some of these pieces uh in a government that has been substantially gutted
▶ 1:06:24doesn't work. may find that what you wish for is worse as a result of the other elements of government that you are relying upon. I'll let it go at that. I do want to compliment the uh author of this amendment for working diligently. One more thing that uh will be coming up is um I'll wait until it comes up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 1:07:00Does anyone else wish to be heard on the Seeing none, are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. All oppose, signify by saying Appear the eyes have it. The amendment, the manager's amendment is agreed to. We're now concerning the bill for amendments.
▶ 1:07:30For what purposes, Mr. Larson? Have an amendment at the desk. Please designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by ranking member Larson number 01. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. And Mr. L, five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment removes three provisions from the bill which undermine the partnership the federal government has had with states and tribes to protect against the pollution of local water bodies.
▶ 1:07:56Much of the success of the clean water act comes from the shared responsibility between federal agencies and states in protecting clean water. The act established strong technology based standards as the federal floor for protecting clean water but allows states to impose more stringent standards where necessary to protect locally important water bodies as well as to assume day-to-day implementation of clean water programs. This partnership model has doubled the number of waters that are safe for fishing, swimming, and drinking since the act's enactment in 1972.
▶ 1:08:25The underlying bill will undermine that partnership. This amendment restores the ability of states to make these locally important decisions related to local water quality. My colleagues claim that a handful of states are abusing their Clean Water Act authority to block critical energy development projects from moving forward. This suggests that certain states are misusing the authority to block all kinds of projects for reasons wholly unrelated to the protection of local water quality as a justification for the changes in the underlying bill. However, facts suggest otherwise.
▶ 1:08:55According to state data, during the five decades since Congress enacted section 401 and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, state water quality agencies have diligently processed thousands of requests each year with little controversy. In the more recent higher profile examples in the state of Washington and in state of New York, the states testified before this committee on the direct adverse water quality concerns that led to state denials.
▶ 1:09:22When the previous administration tried to make similar changes to section 401, several Republican le states raised objections to these changes. For example, the state of Texas described the rule as a as bringing about the breakdown of 20 years of cooperation between state and federal agencies. State of Idaho described the rule quote unlawfully and unnecessarily unquote limiting the scope of Clean Water Act authority.
▶ 1:09:45State of Florida noted these changes would create a quote significant additional workload unquote for the states as well as inefficiencies and conflict and conflict that would quote hinder the in the effectiveness of state programs and the state of North Carolina noted these changes would increase the quote burden on the state often with no appreciable benefit. So my amendment removes several provisions from the bill that undermine this important state authority to protect local water quality.
▶ 1:10:12also allow states and tribes to continue to be the valuable partners Congress hoped they would be with the enactment of the Clean Water Act. In many instances, states are better suited to understand the unique needs, demands, and importance placed on local water bodies. My amendment would allow states to continue to lead local efforts to protect clean water. And so I uh urge its adoption with that. Yield Mr. Rouseer.
▶ 1:10:41Uh thank you uh Mr. Chairman and u put this very simply. Um the amendment in the nature of a substitute closes loopholes that blue states and radical environmentalists have used to stop important projects. That's just true.
▶ 1:10:59It clarifies the scope of section 401 water quality certification to only discharges from federally licensed sets clear procedural timelines and prevents states from using the certification process to block projects.
▶ 1:11:14And this is key for nonwater related In recent years, states such as California, Washington, Oregon, and New York have abused section 401 to deny certifications for reasons outside the scope of protecting water quality to stifle energy projects such as such as a coal export terminal, a natural gas pipeline, and a liqufied natural gas export facility.
▶ 1:11:42This bill as is will prevent the weaponization of section 401 by activist bureaucrats. That's the bottom line. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh today I speak to support this amendment to protect states rights. This is something that I always had assumed was a conservative value as I've heard a lot about it in during my years uh representing the state of California in the legislature.
▶ 1:12:13Um important to both Democrats and Republicans to make sure that we rep that we recognized the state's desire and the state's responsibility to exercise its own delegated authority under the Clean Water Act to protect its constituents as it sees fit.
▶ 1:12:31Now, I I don't believe that it's radical environmentalism when my community wants to make sure that what happened to the San Fernando Valley aquafer, which even during drought is unable to be drawn out and used because of historic pollution. when they worry about contamination from POS and poor chloride and other chemicals in the local water supply.
▶ 1:12:53It's not radical environmentalists for those constituents, those moms, those kids to want to make sure that the water that they're drinking is safe and that we prevent the kind of contamination that we have seen in the past. And they expect their local state, their state and their local government to be able to respond to their concerns.
▶ 1:13:12But today we are undermining the ability of those states to work with their constituency and with the federal government in partnership uh to protect their water and to enforce the Clean Water Act. Uh to be very clear, Representative Larson's amendment helps to continue that a longtime and successful partnership between the state of California and many other states and the federal government. I also want to see critical infrastructure projects move forward.
▶ 1:13:41It's something that's very important to me and it's important to my constituents, but we want to make sure that that's done with all of the protections that our community demands. Uh that is the most important responsibility that government has to protect safety and the life of their constituents. I urge my uh my colleagues to support this amendment to reaffirm states sovereignty, states rights, and to continue the successful partnerships that our states have had for many years under the statute. Thank you, and I yield back.
▶ 1:14:14more speakers. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak in support of ranking member Larson's amendment. As written, this bill severely limits the ability of states and tribes to protect local waters from dangerous sewage overflows.
▶ 1:14:43Managing sewer overflow may not be the issue that our constituents think about every day, but the reality is these water infrastructure systems are tied directly to our health and safety. I proudly represent Flint, Michigan. Tragically, we know what happens when the government takes shortcuts when delivering water. Let's not make the same mistake by investing just a little more to do the right thing.
▶ 1:15:08We save an untold number of children, families, and seniors from the devastating effects of long-term illnesses and disease. We should be using this opportunity to better support our communities and upgrading their water systems, not making it easier to pollute our waterways or ignore the muchneeded upgrades we need to make. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the Seeing no one, are there any amendments to the amendment?
▶ 1:15:40Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All oppose signify by saying nay. It appear the nays have it. Mr. Chair, I ask for recorded vote. Gentleman asks for a recorded vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6f. Further proceedings on the question will be The purpose of Mr. Gmeny rise.
▶ 1:16:09I have an amendment at the desk. Please designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Mr. Gendy of California number 036. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I reserve the right to withdraw my amendment after some brilliant comments that I'm about to make.
▶ 1:16:30Um I want to thank the chairman and the uh majority for providing in this document most of what we have been attempting to do for some time by extending the period of time in which a nepiece permit for public works would be valid.
▶ 1:16:50Presently it's five years and given the complexity of the issue, the complexity of the construction and the like that permit uh is woefully short of time.
▶ 1:17:03And so we have I have introduced legislation previously and again this year that would provide 10 years for public agencies to have a permit to address the issues of um of water uh of contamination of water from their Unfortunately, and here's the famous most important three-letter word we have, but uh the majority included in the legislation, the
▶ 1:17:33extension of permit for public agencies, that is my legislation. Rep. Calbert and Rouser were with me on that. You've included in the legislation permits that are required by private entities that would allow them to have 10 years. I wrestled with this in my district. My staff went round and round on a rather interesting debate.
▶ 1:17:58And then they reminded me, sir, you have five oil refineries in your district, all of Northern California refineries, and giving those refineries 10 years to address a water quality issue that is discharged from the refineries is a non-starter in my district.
▶ 1:18:18Uh, my amendment would remove the 10-year permit window for private entities while maintaining the 10-year permit window for public entities. I would ask that we thought to this as the legislation moves along. I would ask my colleagues to think about their own districts and some of the private companies.
▶ 1:18:46Maybe it's a mining company or maybe it's a oil refinery or some other entity and do you want to give them 10 years to resolve a uh discharge problem that affects your community? I suspect you want to think through that. Um unfortunately I don't believe we're going to have the votes here and I will withdraw this amendment.
▶ 1:19:06Um, but I would ask the majority to keep in mind that there is a difference between public agencies and the time necessary for them to meet the discharge requirements and a private entity that uh should be out and about it more quickly. So with that, uh, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment but ask for your consideration in the future. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, John.
▶ 1:19:39for person is Titus rise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Please designate an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Miss Titus of Nevada number 173. Without objection, the amendment be considered as read. Mr. Titus recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:20:00I have grave concerns about the long-term implications of this bill on critical protections for waterways across the United States, but especially in Nevada and other arid regions of the Southwest. The Clean Water Act signed into law in 1972 by a Republican president is the main federal law protecting our waterways in the country.
▶ 1:20:22In 2023, as we have been discussing, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Sackett versus EPA that significantly reduced the waters that are protected under this critical law by stripping critical protections for a vast quantity of wetlands and streams across the US. Sacket exposed communities to increased flooding.
▶ 1:20:45It threatened their drinking water and it destroyed critical Now, Republicans are seeking to cottify a key element of sacket in this bill by exempting ephemeral streams from Clean Water Act protections. This would be especially devastating in Nevada where nearly 88 88% of streams are ephemeral.
▶ 1:21:08This includes streams that feed into the Colorado River and will have an profound impact on drinking water supplies throughout the basin. This impact extends far beyond Nevada. Not not only exit 88% of streams in Nevada, 86% of streams in Arizona are ephemeral, 70% in New Mexico, 42% in Utah, and 79% in California. So, this is clearly a regional issue.
▶ 1:21:38I say enough is enough. We're already grappling with limited water resources out west. We're in drought conditions and climate change is only going to exacerbate this problem. We really cannot afford to be scaling back critical protections for our waterways and what little bit of water we've got left.
▶ 1:21:56My amendment would provide a critical backs stop to prevent these provisions from taking effect if they would result in 70% or more of any state's waters being any state's waters losing historical federal protection under the Clean Water Act. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote to support this amendment that protects waters of the West. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 1:22:26Does anyone else wish to be heard on the See none, I don't recognize myself. Um I unfortunately I do oppose this amendment. I think it serves to uh delay the implementation of the legislation. I also think that it denies states that are hardest hit by um by the wotus definition from the relief that they need the most.
▶ 1:22:49Um the underlying text does codify long-standing exemptions from the definition of a wus which establishes the scope and jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Um I look forward to continuing to work with the Trump administration on a clear and durable definition of wus that adheres to the Supreme Court uh the Supreme Court's second decision. And with that I yield back. Are there any amendments to the amendment?
▶ 1:23:20Seeing none, the question is on the All those in favor signify by saying I. All oppose signify by saying nay. It appear the nays have it. The gentle lady requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6f. Further proceedings on the question are postponed.
▶ 1:23:45What purpose is Miss Wilson seek Miss Wilson. Miss Wilson, you have an amendment. Designate the amendment.
▶ 1:24:06An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Miss Wilson of Florida number Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Miss Wilson in my district of South Florida where I represent communities are already dealing with contamination and aging water systems.
▶ 1:24:36There are not abstract concerns. They are everyday threats to public health. This amendment is about fairness, transparency, and ensuring that no one gets left behind. It serves as a call to action to understand the real tangible consequences of our policy and its effect on human health, environmental quality, and local economies.
▶ 1:25:02While the Clean Water Act has made great strides to improve our environment, gaps in its environmental regulations have often left behind marginalized communities, denying them access to clean water. That's why I have this amendment that requires the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to report the adverse effects this legislation causes our communities.
▶ 1:25:30The EPA in court will be mandated to deliver a comprehensive report to unveil the stark truths of the accessibility of clean water. For too long, marginalized communities have endured the disproportionate burdens of lacks environmental regulation leading to devastating impacts on their well-being and prosperity.
▶ 1:25:58Everyone deserves to breathe clean air and drink safe water. I urge my colleagues to rally behind this amendment, not just as a policy change, but as a commitment to a future where environmental justice is not just a catast. and I yield back.
▶ 1:26:32Mr. Rouser. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The amendment as written would only focus on desperate impacts and would force EPA and the core to ignore the positive economic impacts that speedy and efficient permitting can provide communities, especially those in need of economic invigoration, which is just about every community. I yield Mr. Larson. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment.
▶ 1:27:00Amendment requires EPA administrator to issue a report to Congress on any disperate impacts or unintended con consequences of this bill on minority, rural, economically disadvantaged or tribal communities. Previous administration made a tremendous effort to promote the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people uh with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of envir environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
▶ 1:27:23The goal of that effort was to ensure that everyone could enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and have equal access to the decision making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. Representative Wilson's amendment would direct the EPA administrator to investigate potential unintended consequences and issue report to Congress. I support this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
▶ 1:27:47Anyone else wish to be heard on the Seeing no one, are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All oppose signify by saying nay. Appear the naysay have it. The nays do have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Titus.
▶ 1:28:19Mr. Titus, you have an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Please designate. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Miss Titus of Nevada number Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Miss Titus, you're recognized on behalf of Mr. Ston. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm actually speaking for Mr.
▶ 1:28:43Stanton and this is introduced by him and his comments are related to Arizona, but because we share the desert southwest, many of these principles apply to my district in Nevada as well. So, it's all across the Southwest, much as the amendment that I introduced earlier. Mr. Stanton's amendment starts from the premise of do no harm.
▶ 1:29:05This amendment would pause the implementation of any of the changes proposed in the bill until the EPA administrator determines that they will not have an adverse effect on drinking water sources or on the health of surface waters in aid and desert prone areas. Safeguarding our water and making sure we have enough clean water are essential to our economy and way of life.
▶ 1:29:30In Arizona, 54% of the water supply comes from surface water, including the Colorado River and other in-state rivers like the Salt and the Verarity Rivers. Safeguarding these surface waters is a priority for everyone across the state and across the Southwest. Extreme heat and drought that were once an arid region issue now are being felt nationwide.
▶ 1:29:54We're feeling them here in in Los Well, we're feeling them in Las Vegas, too, but we're feeling them here in Washington this week. Just go outside. And the corresponding uncertainty highlights the critical importance of protecting our rivers, streams, lakes, and groundwater recharge areas as potential drinking water sources.
▶ 1:30:13This concern is compounded by the Sacket decision which virtually eliminated federal protection of intermittent ephemeral streams which I mentioned earlier that are a source of public drinking water for 117 million Americans and more than 3.2 million Arizonans. We need to be more vigilant in our efforts to save these water bodies, not less. and we need to protect those that are in under the Clean Water Act.
▶ 1:30:42In the desert, water has always been scarce and with the impacts of climate change, it has only grown more urgent for us to protect these waters. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Stanton's amendment. I certainly do, and I yield back. Mr. Razer, I think we all agree uh on the importance of ensuring clean water and adequate water supply as well, which the Clean Water Act balances through its permitting processes.
▶ 1:31:13However, this amendment would jeopardize that balance and only open the door for more litigation, delays, and uncertainty. Therefore, I oppose the amendment. I yield back. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the Seeing no one, are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
▶ 1:31:42All oppose signify by saying nay. It appear the naysay have gentle lady requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6f. Further proceedings on the amendment on the question are postponed. Mr. Garmeny on behalf of Miss Hoy. I have an amendment at the desk for Miss O. Designate.
▶ 1:32:12An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Mr. Garmendy of California number 013. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Thank you, Mr. I want to uh first compliment my colleague, Mr. Lamafa in dealing with this issue uh in the text of the bill. I think however that effort misses a very very important point.
▶ 1:32:37Uh clearly we have to be able to use fire retardants uh in order to deal with the fires that we have. Uh this is a personal thing. There was a fire on my ranch this last summer and uh the application of fire retardants was significantly in limiting the fire to 10 acres and saving the structure.
▶ 1:33:02However, in the days following the uh successful fight of that fire, uh I noticed two things. First of all, the fire retardant was about 150 ft from a uh stock watering And I also noted that before I could move the cattle away from that particular area, they managed to consume all of the grass beneath the fire And I'm going h what's that all about?
▶ 1:33:32U Mr. Lamatha, in your amendment in the base, um you remove the Clean Water Act its application to fire retardants. I think you're doing that for fear that the Clean Water Act application would make it impossible uh to at some point resist a lawsuit. Uh however, I think the I think it's a mistake.
▶ 1:33:59I think we need to continue the Clean Water Act uh application, but delay for some time the potential lawsuits that would prohibit or stop the use of the retardant.
▶ 1:34:16Now, going back to my little experience, I'm going, what is in that fire retardant that would cause the cattle to immediately want to eat that grass that was covered by the retardant? And what is the effect on the pregnant cows that ate the grass? Uh what is the uh potential effect on the stock watering pond and all that live there?
▶ 1:34:45and eventually the cattle that would drink from that pond. We don't know. And therefore, the continuation of the Clean Water Act would provide us with at least a foundation to move forward with the necessary research uh of these retardants.
▶ 1:35:02And also in the larger context of the bill there seems to be a effort to move away from additional research uh for example uh POS contamination and the various techniques to remove POS and the majority is correct. We really don't have good technology presently to deal with POS.
▶ 1:35:25However, the way the legislation is further research that would be forced by the Clean Water Act application won't happen. And I think that's a serious mistake. So, this amendment uh while it preserves what Mr.
▶ 1:35:48Lumafa wants to accomplish that is to continue to use fire retardants uh is appropriate and the amendment doesn't change that but it does cover this issue with the clean water act in other words does not remove this issue from the clean water act clearly it would achieve the goal of Mr. Lafa that some lawsuit would prohibit uh the application of these retardants.
▶ 1:36:18I don't want that to happen. And Miss Hoy's amendment doesn't stop in any way and in fact maintains Mr. office goal, but does put the entire issue under the Clean Water Act so that in the future research would continue uh by the pressure of the Clean Water Act uh and um resolve what is a dilemma or at least in my mind.
▶ 1:36:47Why did the cattle immediately eat the grass that was covered by the retardant? And what is the effect from the application of the retardant on my stock watering pond? I don't know, but I'm curious. And so with that, Mr. Lumaf, you I don't know if you want to comment or not, but uh if you do, uh you certainly have well 15 seconds. I yield Mr. Malfa.
▶ 1:37:18Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got a renewal of time here, so thanks for the 15. Um, I I appreciate uh the interest by uh Miss Hoy and you in the general uh discussion of uh of wildfire prevention and suppression and uh the um the the use of retardant.
▶ 1:37:39Um it just uh if we step back a little bit and and uh take into account that there was folks there that wished to completely stop the usage of retardant and then require an engagement of at least a three-year process of of permitting through EPA and on top of that where 47 states uh would then in turn have to at their individual levels go through a permit process. process.
▶ 1:38:10Um, and and you know, I I sympathize with what you're talking about on your on your ranch there in that um you you pointed out 150 foot gap between uh where the retardant had uh stopped and its and its drop there and and a stock pond and that is actually consistent with um how the retardant is applied near waterways and ponds and other things too. Was it luck in this case? I don't know. But it worked out.
▶ 1:38:41It did not get into the waterway and they have an extremely good record on those material not reaching waterways and and so that's already a known uh goal and factor in the decisions of how how it's utilized. So, but to not have this tool and to to require this level of permit permitting and then open the door to lawsuits in a very short amount of time that could tie this up forever.
▶ 1:39:08I mean, we we uh we can't afford to gamble with this. And so what we're building on last year is one that has uh better information, better data that it was finally provided to us by Forest Service and especially EPA that helped us go better with a better stronger go forward with a better stronger bill that uh precludes this. This is not a new material. This is been around for couple decades to uh pretty darn good effect.
▶ 1:39:38And uh as I mentioned my opening u opening comment on this is that um if we don't have this material and we're trying to put out fire with straight water basically we'll have a situation where we're using mechanical mister to try and do so.
▶ 1:39:55If we do not have this tool and we're in very strong danger of losing this tool um if we have to go through a very very elaborate process for an already known already uh approved material that has been for folks for whatever for whatever reason are seeking to now hold that up and uh there's nothing that precludes additional research to happen concurrently.
▶ 1:40:20We just still don't need to have it happen in the shadow of a possible lawsuit taking away this tool at any in any moment. So I I'll yield you some time, sir. Thank you, Mr. Lamava. I I want to commend you for the underlying bill. I agree with you 100%. We have to have this tool. Lawsuits, an example is extent uh would make this tool unavailable.
▶ 1:40:45Your legislation makes it very clear that the lawsuits cannot proceed and cannot stop the use of this tool and and I agree totally with that. Miss Hoy's amendment deals with the removal of this tool from the Clean Water Act and her amendment simply continues this particular tool that is the retardant being subject to the Clean Water Act.
▶ 1:41:14However, given your it would not in any way stop the use of this tool, but continue our focus on the not only the effectiveness of the retardant, but also the potential problem that the retardant might contribute to the environment in the area. Uh 150 ft, it turns out it's directly downhill. And you know, that's my problem. I'll just have to live with that.
▶ 1:41:43But and then I'm glad that there is 150 foot buffer zone in the current law. I commend you for what you're doing. But I would urge that the amend would say that the amendment simply continues this particular chemical retardant under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, but would not in any way change your underlying amendment which prohibits the use of a
▶ 1:42:14lawsuit to stop the application of the current um retardants. Thank you. I'll reclaim. Um there's a limited window with which the we would be uh not subject to lawsuit and that's that's my concern because we do not need in the middle of a 2027 fire season or something uh a a complete shutdown of the of the ability to use this. And so that's why I've moved to strengthen this protection of being able to use this.
▶ 1:42:43We're in no way precluding the add additional research for a decade's old material that has been used successfully. uh all this time with uh as long as supplied properly not near waterways that we we show uh good uh good success. So I need to yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The chair appreciates the yield back. Any other members uh wish to comment? Well, let me say I oppose this amendment.
▶ 1:43:12Over the last year, communities across our country have faced devastation caused by wildfires. The underlying bill will exempt aerial fire retardants from requiring a permit under the Clean Water Act. This is effectively cottifying the EPA's long-standing position on the issue, which changed only recently due to litigation from environmentalist groups. The safety of American citizens and the protection of property should be the top concern when the threat of fire is present and we should not put our communities at risk.
▶ 1:43:40And for those reasons, I oppose the amendment. All right. Uh, seeing no other members who want to uh make comment, are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying nay.
▶ 1:44:10In the opinion of the chairs, the nays have it. Yes, sir. All right. The gentleman on behalf of Mrs. Hull request a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6F. Further proceedings on the question are postponed. For what purpose does Miss Sykes seek recognition?
▶ 1:44:42Mr. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Miss Sykes of Ohio number 046. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Miss Sykes is recognized for five minutes to speak on her amendment. Thank you, Chair Graves. I am introducing an amendment for legislation that has long been a bipartisan initiative known as the no net loss of wetlands policy.
▶ 1:45:10First put forward by President George HW Bush in 1988. It inspired by and inspired by policy from President Jimmy Carter, this policy does what it sounds like. It ensures that loss in wetland functions are restored through mitigation or the creation of new wetlands. It's it is hard to overstate how important wetlands are to our broader ecosystem and waters. Uh because more than onethird of endangered and threatened species in the United States live in wetlands.
▶ 1:45:38Wetlands protect our communities from flooding and promote natural water quality improvement leading to healthier ecosystems and communities. The no net loss of wetlands policy was upheld by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama and has spurred private investment to minimize the negative effects of development so that we can grow our communities without compromising our environment. In fact, in Ohio, like many other states, has a no net loss of wetlands policy, which is especially important in light of attacks on wetland protections.
▶ 1:46:07Despite decades of this bipartisan common sense policy, in his first term, President Trump decided to strip water protections, including lifting federal protections on roughly half of the country's wetlands. As you know, Ohio has been at the forefront of the Clean Water Act and protecting our water resources and in Ohio. And we know that the Clean Water Act exists for a Today, part of the Kyhoga River runs through my district, the Kyhoga River.
▶ 1:46:34in uh 1952 was published in Time magazine uh with a picture of the river on fire. This helped catalyze a movement to protect our waters and our planet ultimately leading to the creation of Earth Day and the Clean Water Act in This river one part of the Kaga Valley National Park is one of the most visited national parks in the United States.
▶ 1:46:58It took 20 years and $3.5 billion dollars in infrastructure investments to clean up the water and to allow nature to return to its shores. This underscores the cost of neglecting our waters and the billions of dollars we can save taxpayers by investing in clean water and infrastructure before a disaster even strikes. And protecting our waters includes protecting our wetlands.
▶ 1:47:19The Supreme Court's Sacket decision severely weakens the Clean Water Act by redefining what waters are covered, finding that upstream waters, including uh ephemeral streams like many found in wetlands, are permanently exempted from the Clean Water Act protection. The decision ruled that wetlands are only protected if there is a continuous surface connection and this eliminates federal protections for more than 50% of wetlands.
▶ 1:47:41In Ohio, models ex estimate between 61 and 98% 61 and 98% of wetlands are at risk as a result of this ruling and it is disastrous. And now rather than focusing on bipartisan policy to protect wetlands and fund our nation water infrastructure, this legislation would codify that decision and impact our communities in Ohio and all across the country. So my amendment, Mr.
▶ 1:48:05chair strikes this section and instead requires that the administration reestablish the bipartisan no net loss of wetlands policy so that our environment is protected and our waters are safe. And with that, I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Uh do any members wish to recognize uh to speak? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:48:34I'd like to speak on behalf of You're recognized. Sorry. Thank you. Apologies. Yeah. Okay. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak on uh behalf of this amendment offered by a fellow Great Lakes uh state member here. We know how important uh these freshwater resources are.
▶ 1:48:53And uh the the sacket versus EPA decision took our country in the wrong direction when it came to these wetlands which as Miss Sykes said provide such incredible natural uh barriers to flooding uh in in the decision in Sacket versus EPA. Justice Alo wrongly calls them uh fetted waters. They are anything but.
▶ 1:49:16uh they provide incredible natural barriers uh to pollution and uh flooding in our Great Lakes. We can come together and find a solution around how to make sure that individuals who don't intend to pollute our wetlands get the permits that they need to move forward without filling up these critical wetlands and contaminating our waters. And I invite my colleagues on the other side to to come together um and ensure that this happens.
▶ 1:49:45But the no net loss of wetlands is a long-standing bipartisan solution and I strongly support this amendment. Any other members wish to be recognized? Well, I'd like to uh thank uh Miss Sykes for her amendment. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on it. Unfortunately, I oppose the amendment.
▶ 1:50:08Uh this legislation codifies long-standing exemptions to the Wus definition for waste treatment systems prior uh converted crop land, groundwater and ephemeurial features that have been reaffirmed by both Democrat and Republican administrations. This amendment would add unnecessary complexity and uncertainty and therefore I must oppose. Let's see here. Are there amendments to the amendment?
▶ 1:50:37Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote. Gentle lady request a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6f.
▶ 1:51:00Further proceedings on the question are For what purpose does Miss Shelton seek uh recognition? I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Miss Scolton of Michigan number 027. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Miss Shelton is recognized for up to five minutes to speak on her amendment. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:51:30I'm so grateful to be a part of such an incredible bipartisan committee um because there is such important bipartisan work to be done here. Yet today we are considering a hyperartisan piece of legislation that will exacerbate the already disastrous actions that have worked to erode the Clean Water Act uh set in place following the Sacket versus EPA decision. The Clean Water Act's guiding light is its objective.
▶ 1:52:00have stated in the preamble to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our nation's water. We know how important that goal is back home in Michigan. As a mother, I find these massive roll backs of the Clean Water Act particularly concerning as they will have significant impacts on pregnant women and young families. We know that good public health starts with clean water.
▶ 1:52:27And I take seriously the issue uh of polluting our water, particularly with chemicals that will harm young mothers and their unborn children as well as young families. Absent a clear standard that goes beyond protecting all pollutants, I want to introduce an amendment here today that would protect our water, particularly from those chemicals known to harm women, their children, and their young families.
▶ 1:52:54I am confident that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle care deeply about keeping their communities safe, and there is no one more vulnerable in our community than pregnant women and young children. And that's why my amendment will ensure our nation's water are safeguarded against the well-being of expectant mothers and kids from harmful pollutants. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical amendment to keep families across America healthy. Thank you.
▶ 1:53:21I yield Do any members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Seeing none, I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the amendment. I oppose the amendment. The EPA already regulates the use of pesticides through the FIFRA program, which has robust health and safety standards for the use of pesticides.
▶ 1:53:46The underlying bill clarifies that the use of pesticides which have already been approven by the EPA to meet health standards do not need a duplicative permitting process under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, this amendment quite frankly is not not necessary and I oppose it. With that, I yield back. Are there any further speakers on the amendment? Seeing none, are there amendments to the Seeing none, the question is on the amendment.
▶ 1:54:16All those in favor say I. All those opposed say nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote. Gentle lady, request a rep recorded vote.
▶ 1:54:36As previously announced, pursuant to committee rule 6F, further proceedings on the question are For what purpose does Miss McDonald Rivet seek recognition? I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Miss McDonald Rivet of Michigan number 015.
▶ 1:55:06Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Miss McDonald Rivet is recognized for up to five minutes to speak on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this amendment in an effort to protect the drinking water of 40 million people. The Great Lakes are the backbone of my community and so many others. Not only do they contain over 90% of America's surface freshwater, but they also fuel a trick $6 trillion economy.
▶ 1:55:34My home state of Michigan and the surrounding Great Lakes states have a history of fighting against pollutants in the Great Lakes like PAS forever chemicals and harmful algae blooms. This bill, as written, weakens the protections that keep our Great Lakes safe and free from contamination. This threatens the local economy of every single community on or near the Great Lakes and our ability to pass along this magnificent natural resource to the next generation. My amendment amendment is very straightforward.
▶ 1:56:05I'm requesting that before this bill goes into effect, the EPA administrator determines that nothing in this bill would lead to an increase in pollution or crippling algae brooms in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Protecting the Great Lakes has always been a bipartisan effort, and I believe that this amendment carries that intention forward. With that, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment. Thank you, and I yield back. Mr. Collins is recognized.
▶ 1:56:35Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. Uh the underlying legislation will help implement the Clean Water Act in a more efficient and effective way by clarifying EPA's issuance of permits and ensuring a more robust water quality criteria development process. This amendment would completely halt the implementation of the underlying bill based on an arbitrary determination that would be impossible for the APA to make. Therefore, I oppose.
▶ 1:57:04Thank you and I yield back. Miss Sykes, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am joining the chorus to support the amendment from my colleague from the Great Lakes. Uh because algablooms are and continue to be an issue. I am reminded of almost a decade ago, the city of Toledo, which is just west of my district in Ohio 13 was impacted because of dangerous alkalooms impacted their water supply.
▶ 1:57:34People all across the city had no access to water. Not minimal access, no access to water. Uh they could not drink, they could not bathe, they could not provide medical assistance. uh and for some family members or some residents who needed medical attention that required water, they could not provide that either. Hundreds of thousands of residents were not able to use water for nearly 3 days.
▶ 1:57:58These are serious problems that have impacted communities and continue to impact communities all across this country, but particularly for those of us who are in the Great Lakes. And so I applaud my colleague from the great state of Michigan, which you know, most times Ohioans don't ever say the great state of Michigan because it's not as great of a state as Ohio. Um, but I would like to commend her for offering this amendment. Um, because uh, while we may be rival football teams, we have a shared desire for clean water for our communities across state lines.
▶ 1:58:28Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I urge support of this amendment. Are there any further uh, speakers on this amendment? Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.
▶ 1:58:55Gentle lady requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6F. Further proceedings on the question are For what purpose does Miss Freriedman seek recognition? Thank you. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment.
▶ 1:59:19An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Miss Freriedman of California number Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Miss Freeman is recognized for up to five minutes to speak on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment is a simple one. It prevents this package from taking effect if implementation will result in contamination of waters that are available for water recapture, recycling, or groundwater recharge.
▶ 1:59:46I'm proud to say that Los Angeles and Southern California as a whole has been a champion of water reuse for decades. And those of you who have that sky water that comes down regularly may not understand how important it is u for us to be able to create our own water and reuse water. We have made major investments, major major investments putting um taxpayer and rateayer money out to make sure that we have the infrastructure to recycle and reuse water.
▶ 2:00:13And we need to make sure that that water is clean enough to be recycled as drinking water. Uh the Los Angeles Sanitation District has been producing recycled water since 1962 safely. Um we see water recycling as an imperative to the future of Southern California as climate change continues to worsen as we have seen over the past 10 years and our water continues to be an increasingly scarce resource.
▶ 2:00:38We have been investing in our ability to produce droughtresistant sources of water like water reuse. But that water has to be clean. The Clean Water Act has transformed the health of our water bodies across the nation, including in Los Angeles, where we still have remaining aquafers that are polluted from old industrial uses. But today, that progress that we made through the Clean Water Act is being threatened uh by my my colleagues across the aisle. The package before us today weakens our ability to hold polluters accountable for the damage that they have done in the past.
▶ 2:01:09And ultimately, more pollution on the waters means higher cleanup costs, which are going to be shouldered by American families. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge them to think about the fact that Los Angeles is weaning itself off of the imported water that other western states rely on from the Colorado River. And I urge you to support this amendment. And I yield back. Mr. Collins, you're recognized. I oppose this amendment.
▶ 2:01:39Uh once again, this is another attempt to stop the progress this bill would make by forcing the EPA administrator to make a vague determination. The underlying bill seeks to rebalance the scales between protecting our water resources and allowing for responsible development. Thank you and I yield back. Are there any are there any further speakers on this amendment? Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment.
▶ 2:02:08All those in favor say I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please. Thank you. The gentle lady requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6f.
▶ 2:02:28Further proceedings on the question are For what purpose does Miss Gillan seek recognition? Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Miss Gillan of New York number 024. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Miss Gillan is recognized for up to five minutes to speak on her amendment.
▶ 2:02:58Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment to the NS would require that the EPA administrator certify that none of these proposals will result in an increase in the discharge of cancercausing pollutants including POS before they can be implemented. As you know, chairman, PAS contamination causes serious health problems, including links to cancer, liver damage, and immune system disorders.
▶ 2:03:23My constituents and Americans across the country should not be subjected to these cancer-causing chemicals in their water supply every time they turn on the faucet. I am honored to represent the Southshore of Long Island in New York's fourth congressional district. Unfortunately, my district suffers suffers from legacy water contamination, aging infrastructure, and unacceptable water quality issues that for too long have been neglected by our federal government.
▶ 2:03:50People in my district like Mary Florence Perie in the village of Hemstead have noticed that many of their friends and neighbors were developing strange forms of cancer and came to the realization that this may be caused by carcinogens in our water supply. The village relies on a plant that is more than a hundred years old and it's one of the oldest in the region and last year village officials found alarming levels of toxic cancer-causing PAS chemicals in their drinking water.
▶ 2:04:17When I met Miss Pertie last summer, she showed me hundreds and hundreds of signatures on a petition begging to get clean water in Hemstead. And I promised that I would come to Congress and fight to get clean water for every American. Mr. Chairman, this is a nonpartisan issue that impacts every American citizen. My amendment, which is a po co-sponsored by our colleague, Representative Papus, will simply make sure that this legislative package will do no harm to all of our constituents and ensure that we keep our water safe and healthy.
▶ 2:04:47Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in safeguarding the health of our constituents and vote for this common sense amendment. Thank you, sir, and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Collins, you're recognized. I oppose this amendment. Uh this amendment is another attempt at forcing an arbitrary decision by the EPA administrator. Listen, I understand the importance of ensuring our water is healthy.
▶ 2:05:12However, the scientific knowledge to make a determination on PIFA simply does not exist at this time as the previous administration found out. Additionally, nothing in this bill stops the EPA from continuing to learn more about any effects and tools to address POS. Thank you, and I yield back. Are there any other uh speakers on this Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment.
▶ 2:05:42All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chairs, the nays have it. And the amendment is not agreed vote. For what purpose does Mr. Perry seek signal recognition? Mr. Chairman, I've got an amendment at the desk. Clerk will designate the amendment.
▶ 2:06:10An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania number 040. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Perry is recognized for up to five minutes to speak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:06:23This amendment provides a sense of Congress that the Chesapeake Bay wershed agreement is a voluntary cooperative agreement and that the EPA should work in a cooperative and collaborative manner with state parties in meeting their TMDLs or total maximum daily loads.
▶ 2:06:42In 1985, the states in the Chesapeake Bay region recognized the desire to address pollutants in the bay and through their own initiative came together to consider mitigation efforts. These state-driven efforts were largely successful. Water quality improved almost 50% from 1985 to 2010 by the measurable standards and the guidelines provided.
▶ 2:07:07In 2010, the EPA seized the state's authority to determine their own method of compliance and threatened to take over the water water quality plans if the states didn't states failed to comply with the EPA's plan. This 2010 power grab known as the Chesapeake Bay TMDL strategy directly contradicts the intent of the Clean Water Act itself.
▶ 2:07:30The CWA clearly acknowledges state authority in water quality and requires cooperation rather than coercion between the states and the federal government. This amendment simply provides important congressional clarification that the EPA should be working in partnership with the states to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act, not through threats and retaliatory actions as we have seen under previous This important clarification will empower
▶ 2:08:00states and localities to make their own water quality decisions and restore the local controls that have been shown to actually improve quality. More importantly, the current current coercive framework disincentivizes other states that may be interested in a regional watershed cleanup effort from doing so due to the fear of it turning into a top-down heavy-handed regulatory approach.
▶ 2:08:27As is evidenced by what has happened to the Chesapeake Bay program, providing congressional clarification on the role of the EPA in these agreements will help to improve outcomes, which is what I think we actually want to do. So, I urge support of this amendment and I yield the balance. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. Uh, it's been offered by the representative from Pennsylvania.
▶ 2:08:53Ches Ches Bay is a natural a natural treasure. It is the largest and one of the most productive estuaries in the country. For decades, impacts of human activity impaired the Chesapeake to the point that it was unable to support living flora and fauna that relied upon it. The declining health of the Chesapeake Bay is why state and locals with the fed federal governments uh created the Ches Bay program partnership.
▶ 2:09:21It is why they wrote the Chesapeake Bay watershed agreement and collaboration is in fact the first principle of the agreement. However, it doesn't mean the agreement its goals and pathways to achieve those goals are optional. Implementation of the Ches Bay total maximum daily load limits or TMDLs are typically carried out through permits which are enforceable limits on point source discharges within the wershed.
▶ 2:09:45These permit limits in conjunction with state agreed wershed implementation plans are intended to make continuous progress in improving water quality within the bay. These enforceable limits are not voluntary but required. The sense of Congress will not change that. I oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it without yield back. Are there any other members that wish to speak on the amendment? I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the amendment. I support the amendment.
▶ 2:10:15It makes perfect sense for Congress to send a message to the EP that to the EPA that it should work with all the Chesapeake Bay states and their residents to fairly and cooperative cooperatively run the recovery program that they and we all want to see be With that, I yield back. Are there any amendments to the Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
▶ 2:10:46All those opposed signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chairs, the eyes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Mr. Dier, for what purpose do you seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 2:11:10The clerk will designate the amendment an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Mr. Dier of California number 010. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Dier is recognized for up to five minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:11:28My amendment simply requires the EPA to review the potential effects of this bill on home harmful algal blooms and certify that these provisions will not increase HABs, their prevalence or severity of these blooms.
▶ 2:11:45HABs have long been an issue across the country and especially in the area I represent both in the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento Sanwaqin Delta which provides fresh water to more than twothirds of the state of California. HABs consist of a type of algae that has been ha has the potential to produce harmful toxins that can hurt humans while wildlife and our waters.
▶ 2:12:12The presence and severity of HABs can be exacerbated by human activities, including excessive nutrient pollution from agriculture or sewage runoff, invasive species, or reduced water flows. Climate change can also exacerbate HABs due to increased water temperatures.
▶ 2:12:31The weakening of regulations as proposed in this bill, particularly for sewage and agricultural it could very much increate increase and exacerbate the situation. San Francisco Bay is highly susceptible to these blooms due to the already high concentration of nutrient pollutants. We cannot allow more unregulated runoff into our waters.
▶ 2:12:57Although I strongly oppose the under underlying bill, if it were to pass into law, we must at least know how it would impact habs and ensure that these provisions will not inadvertently cause habs to occur more frequently. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences, depending on the type of algae, HABs can cause serious health effects or even death if someone eats contam contaminated seafood.
▶ 2:13:25Not only do they affect public health, but high prevalences of HABs can also impact local fishery and water tourism economies. Data shows that occurrences of HABs decreased in the Delta in 2024. We need to continue on that path to ensure our waters are safe for humans and wildlife. We cannot afford to reduce or weaken the regulations that work to limit pollution in our waters. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.
▶ 2:13:55Mr. Collins is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. Yet again, this is an amendment designed to delay the implementation of the underlying legislation that is based on metrics that are not possible to measure or calculate. Thank you, and I yield Miss Sykes, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 2:14:16As you can tell, I am very passionate about Algablooms because here I am again to speak in support of this amendment to ensure that uh the EPA will require the EPA, excuse me, the administrator to certify provisions will not cause an increase in harmful algablooms across this country.
▶ 2:14:35Uh again, I want to bring up about a little over a decade ago, the city of Toledo was significantly impacted when for three days uh Toledo residents in northwest Ohio were unable to drink from the taps of their water. Uh there was as uh my colleague from California said uh a significant increase in nutrients because um of runoff because Ohio does have a large agricultural uh industry.
▶ 2:15:05Uh additionally um because of extreme weather events and heat that also exacerbates which we are all experiencing uh right now we are concerned about algablooms in the great lakes and Noah has indicated that there is a moderate to larger than moderate uh prediction of algablooms in the great lakes that we should be aware of.
▶ 2:15:26Uh, as I mentioned before, um, in the aftermath of the Toledo issue about 10 years ago, um, I was in the state house and we invested historic amounts of money into an H2 Ohio program, uh, which helped to control uh, the nutrient runoff. And interestingly enough, one of the things that we were able to implement was increasing more wetlands to capture the nutrients. Uh, Mr. Mr.
▶ 2:15:52Chair, you might remember just a few moments ago, I offered an amendment to make sure that we were restoring the wetlands, those wetlands that we instituted in our state, a Republicanled state with a Republican supermajority legislature and governor uh to increase wetlands in the amendment that was voted down uh that I offered not too long ago would eliminate upwards of 98% of those a wetlands. Mr.
▶ 2:16:17Chair, we are just asking for you all to work with us to help support our communities, ensure that there is clean drinking water for everyone. Uh I recognize that there is a desire for development. We want our communities to grow, but we also want our communities to live and be safe. The neurotoxins in these algaooms can create lasting effects especially to our most vulnerable citizens, children and pregnant women. Uh and we just do not want to see these impacts uh continue to harm the health and well-being.
▶ 2:16:44If that argument is not sufficient, uh the Toledo case is uh one that showed that small businesses continued to suffer and are were significantly impacted when these algablooms impacted the water supply in Toledo. Again, impacting over 500,000 people and even more rateayers in the area have been uh required to burden the cost of the additional upgrades uh that the city has had to do.
▶ 2:17:09So as Ohioans and people all across this country are still waiting for this administration to lower their costs, they were more costs were added because uh they had to do upgrades and different types of treatments to make sure that the water situation does not uh disintegrate with algablooms increasing uh in the Great Lakes.
▶ 2:17:28So again, if this committee is truly committed to lowering people's costs and making it more affordable for small businesses and individuals in midsized American cities, large American cities, or for Americans all across the country, I would encourage um Democrats and Republicans, no matter what community you're from, even if you're not in the Great Lakes, to support this amendment to ensure that algablooms are not impacting our clean water and our drinking supply. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yield back. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 2:17:59Are there other members that uh seek recognition? Not seeing any, are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for recorded recorded vote has been requested as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6F. Further proceedings on the question are postponed.
▶ 2:18:35For what purpose does Miss Sykes seek Hello again. I have amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Miss Sykes of Ohio number Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Miss Sykes is recognized for up to five minutes to speak on her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 2:18:59I know that every person in this room on both sides of the aisle loves to talk about lowering costs, and my amendment would do just that. My amendment would have us put our money where our mouth is by ensuring that none of these polluting provisions go into effect if they contaminate water supplies and increase costs for rateayers.
▶ 2:19:20This bill currently rolls back and weakens a range of common sense environmental regulations by giving polluters more opportunities to avoid prevention and mitigation, including allowing polluters to turn a blind eye and limiting the scope to what is covered under the Clean Water Act. The reality is that pollution does have a cost and responsibly regulating water pollution actually saves money in the environment and the health of our communities compared to the cost of cleanup.
▶ 2:19:47Uh, as I mentioned earlier, uh, this image behind me, which was actually taken of a fire in 1952, uh, was published in Time magazine in a Time magazine article covering the 1969 fire that helped catalyze the movement to protect our waters and our planet, ultimately leading to the creation of the Clean Water Act in 1972. Today, part of the Kaga River runs through my district in the Naga Valley National Park, and it is one of the most visited national parks in the United States. And I encourage and would welcome all of you to come see it.
▶ 2:20:17Uh, and the $3.5 billion investment that it took to make sure that we clean it up. This underscores what it costs when we do not protect our waters and the billions of dollars we can save taxpayers by investing in clean water and infrastructure before disasters strike. Today, we could be working together to lower costs for T rateayers and improve our water infrastructure by reauthorizing and investing critical water programs, including the Clean Water State Revolving Fund that supports water treatment infrastructure in our communities.
▶ 2:20:47I was proud to lead a bipartisan letter advocating for increased funding for this program and other water infrastructure programs. Uh I was also proud to sign on to request advocating for funding for lowincome household water assistance programs. Um, every American, no matter where they live, should be able to afford to access affordable, clean, and safe drinking water when they turn on the tap.
▶ 2:21:08And my amendment would ensure that none of these provisions would go into effect unless it is clear that they would not increase pollution of our water supply or increase the cost of our rateayers. Uh, Mr. Chair, I know you and other members of this community continue to hear from our constituents that the costs of living is just too high.
▶ 2:21:30And to force Americans to shoulder that burden when people are polluting our waterways is simply irresponsible and disrespectful to the American public who has been asking us for many, many years to lower costs. So let us do what the voters and the citizens of this country have asked for. lower their cost and not make them pay for when polluters uh force cleanup projects because they have done the wrong thing. Mr.
▶ 2:21:58Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for people and help lower costs by supporting this amendment. And I yield back. Mr. Collins, you're recognized. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I want to reiterate the Clean Water Act allows for the discharge of pollutants if they are permitted. That's the purpose of the act's regulatory framework.
▶ 2:22:20This legislation maintains the Clean Water Acts permitting process, protecting our nation's water supply, while also eliminating costs to consumers by cutting red tape. Thank you, and I yield back. Are there any other members that seek uh recognition? Seeing none, are there amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I.
▶ 2:22:50I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. In the opinion of the chair, the naysay have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chair, I request I record a vote. General lady requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6F. Further proceedings on the question are For what purpose does Mr.
▶ 2:23:20Figures seek recognition? Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Mr. Figures of Alabama number 028. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Figures is recognized for up to five minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 2:23:43Uh my amendment would simply prohibit the implementation of any provision in this bill that would worsen the flood risk or pollution uh in low-income and rural communities. I represent Alabama's second congressional district, a district that is uh overwhelmingly rural, but also within the uh unfortunate geographical location of being in Hurricane Alley right on the Gulf Coast. Um many communities are already struggling with access to clean and safe water.
▶ 2:24:07Many uh communities are already struggling uh with pollution issues and other environmental uh challenges. These are places where aging and underfunded water systems are already stretched thin. And when infrastructure projects move forward without primal environmental considerations and safeguards, uh we're not just creating more risk, we're making the water dirtier while providing little to no funding to help the systems responsible for cleaning it up. Uh and this is often in communities that do not have the financial capacity or resources uh to be able to provide for that cleanup themselves.
▶ 2:24:37Uh that ultimately shifts the burden to local communities and rateayers, many of whom are already paying more than they can afford for basic water services. Uh in other words, this bill uh risk compounding the challenges facing rural and low-income families without giving them the tools to manage the consequences. Uh streamlining permitting should not come at the expense of people who are already bearing the brunt of environmental neglect.
▶ 2:24:57Uh this amendment ensures that even as this flawed and partisan bill moves forward, uh we're at least not adding further harm to communities, especially like the ones that I represent in Alabama, already burdened by environmental and infrastructure challenges. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment and protect communities that are most vulnerable to these risks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. Mr. Collins, do you wish to be Mr.
▶ 2:25:26Chairman, I oppose this amendment. First, the EPA does not determine flood risk. That falls under the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA. Secondly, uh the Clean Water Act allows for the discharge of pollutants if they are permitted. Therefore, this amendment is not appropriate for this legislation and I must oppose. Thank you, and I yield back. Any other members seek Let's see.
▶ 2:25:56Are there any amendments to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chairs, the pardon me, in the opinion of the chair, the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 2:26:28I'll start. For what purpose does Mr. Huffman seek recognition? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Mr. Huffman of California number 024. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Huffman is recognized for up to five minutes to speak on his amendment. Mr. Chairman, a critical tool of the Clean Water Act is section 401.
▶ 2:26:57It gives states and tribes authority to protect their access to clean water. This provides state and tribal leaders with the ability to protect and monitor their resources, drinking water, and recreational opportunities, protecting people, ecosystems, and local economies. Now, many members of this committee say they care about and respect tribes. And if you mean that, you have to support this amendment because it's very simple.
▶ 2:27:26The base text of this bill weakens these oversight protections for states and tribes. So, let's at least uh protect tribes. Let's at least ensure that these protections for Indian country remain. 84 federally recognized tribes around the country have utilized section 401 to protect their rights to clean water, to protect fisheries and to block polluting and destructive industries which may harm their cultural resources.
▶ 2:27:56Tribes like the Karuk, Hoopa Valley, Dry Creek Rancheria, and Resini Rancheria tribes in my district have the regional knowledge and expertise important to manage and protect their local water bodies. It is for this reason why they were given the responsibility in the first place to certify Clean Water Act permits.
▶ 2:28:16To weaken these protections from tribes for lands and waterways that they have fished, hunted, and lived in since time immemorial would not just be negligent, but it would be a deep injustice. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back. Gentleman yields back. Do any other members wish to be recognized on the Thank you, Mr. Hman. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
▶ 2:28:47I oppose this amendment. Under the Clean Water Act, tribes have been have had the opportunity to use section 401 certification akin to states and the ability to run their own 402 and 404 programs. Nothing in this bill would change tribal authority. This amendment would treat tribes differently than states, depriving them of the opportunities this bill unlocks for states. So I must oppose. Thank you and I yield back. Are there any further speakers on the on this amendment?
▶ 2:29:13Seeing none, are there amendments to the Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The gentleman requested a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6F.
▶ 2:29:41Further proceedings on this question are For what purpose does Mr. Huffman seek recognition? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Mr. Mr. Huffman of California number 01. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Huffman is recognized for five minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 2:30:11Chairman. The original intent of the Clean Water Act was to protect people, communities, and the environment. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues continue to be more interested in protecting big corporate interests by undermining environmental safeguards that are necessary to protect our waters.
▶ 2:30:28Section 404 C of the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to restrict or stop projects seeking Army Corps approval if they discover unacceptable adverse effects on drinking water, recreation, or fish and wildlife. EPA has used this authority sparingly. Most recently though, in 2023 to protect the sensitive Bristol Bay wershed in southwest Alaska from the disastrous Pebble Mine project.
▶ 2:30:58This is a project overwhelmingly opposed by Alaskans, especially those in and around the Bristol Bay wershed and certainly anyone who makes their livelihood from the world's greatest salmon stronghold, uh, Bristol Bay. The pebble mine would have damaged this amazing Sakai salmon run, destroying the cultural home and economic livelihood of tribal and fishing communities.
▶ 2:31:23And that's why it was opposed by so many folks in Alaska and around the country, including hunters and fishermen and even including Donald Trump Jr. HR 3898 would hand the Pebble Mine and many projects like it a second chance under a significantly weakened 404C authority by restricting the time frame for EPA action to the unreasonably short period between when the applicant submits all the information required
▶ 2:31:54to complete the application and when the permit is actually issued by the core. This new time frame would create serious legal uncertainty as it's unclear when and how EPA would be brought into the permit review process. Uh and there's no obligation for the Army Corps to share application information with the EPA. Ultimately, it would prevent EPA from doing its job and it would erode decades of successful cooperative federalism.
▶ 2:32:23This bill is a gift to the Pebble Mine and big corporate interests that have been lobbying the Trump administration to renew the Pebble Mine project and other environmentally catastrophic projects in communities all over the country. So, my amendment simply asks or simply allows EPA to maintain its ability to do its due diligence in reviewing any new projects that are developed in the 14 areas that have been previously protected by 404C.
▶ 2:32:53And that includes Bristol Bay, Alaska, Spruce, West Virginia, and others. DPA would still be able to assess and make 404C determinations at any point during the review or approval of this subset of projects. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important amendment that continues to protect Bristol Bay and other pristine watersheds. And I yield Gentlemen yields. Do uh any members wish to be recognized on this amendment?
▶ 2:33:27Thank you, Mr. Huffman. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the amendment. I strongly oppose this amendment. The underlying legislation sets clear boundaries for when the EPA is authorized to veto a 404 permit, which is solely limited to when there is an active permit application. This bill does not eliminate the EPA's authority to evaluate each permit and exercise its veto authority. This amendment would introduce more uncertainty into the very process we are trying to clarify. Thank you, and I yield back. Are there any further speakers on the amendment?
▶ 2:33:57Ranking member Larson's recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support this amendment that Representative Huffman offered. This amendment ensures the protections already provided by the EPA under its 404C veto authority are not undone. EPA's use of this authority is imprudent and it has been rare, occurring under presidential administrations of both parties only 14 times. Yet, the legislation we're marking up today seeks to eliminate this important safeguard.
▶ 2:34:24The most recent use of this authority by the EPA was to protect Bristol Bay, Alaska from the proposed Pebble Mine. Development of the Pebble Mine would damage a vibrant and critical salmon fishery, and the EPA was right to halt the project. But Pebble Mine puts thousands of jobs at risk. This bill also imposes a reduced timeline for future EPA use of 404C, including review of any new proposed projects in areas like Bristol Bay that are already protected.
▶ 2:34:55This amendment would ensure that the 14 areas currently protected would not be subject to this new reduced timeline that undermines public engagement and undermines EPA's due diligence for responsible decisionmaking. With that, I support this amendment and recommend all members do the same. Without yield back, Gentleman yields back. Are there any further speakers on this amendment? Seeing none, are there amendments to the Seeing none, the question is on the amendment.
▶ 2:35:25All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Gentlemen request of a recorded vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6f. Further proceedings on the question are For what purpose does Mr. Johnson of Georgia seek recognition? I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 2:35:54Clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia number 027. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Johnson is recognized for five minutes to speak on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and I rise today to express my deep concern about the troubling disconnect in this bill. On one hand, the Trump administration is proposing cuts to the EPA's clean water infrastructure programs.
▶ 2:36:25On the other hand, this bill weakens the very laws that protect our rivers, lakes, and drinking water. At a recent water hearing, both Democrats and Republicans agreed we need more investment in water infrastructure, not Yet, here we are with this bill that does the opposite. It slashes regulations that help cities, towns, and rural communities keep their water clean, safe, and reliable.
▶ 2:36:56That is passing the costs and the consequences down to the very communities we're supposed to be helping. That's why I'm offering this amendment to make it clear Congress supports full funding for the EPA's clean water infrastructure programs. We cannot ask states and communities to take on more responsibility for protecting water quality while pulling back the federal support that they depend on.
▶ 2:37:27That approach sets them up to fail, especially communities already struggling to maintain aging infrastructure. If Trump's move if Trump's cuts move forward, the outcome is clear. Communities will be forced to choose between higher water bills or lower water quality. That's a false choice no American should have to make.
▶ 2:37:52My amendment makes clear and reaffirms our commitment to clean, safe, and reliable water for all. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to stand up for the basic right to clean water in every community. So, if you support polluters and you favor dirty water, then vote against this uh common sense amendment.
▶ 2:38:19If you stand with me and the people and you support clean water, uh then you'll vote for this amendment. And with that, I yield back. Gentlemen yields. Do any other members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the amendment. I have to oppose this amendment.
▶ 2:38:42The gentleman's amendment is related to clean water infrastructure funding levels whereas today's debate is focused on permitting reforms to enable America to build again. Therefore, the amendment is not appropriate for consideration today. Thank you. And I yield back. Are there any further speakers on the amendment? Seeing none, are there amendments to the Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
▶ 2:39:11All those opposed signify by saying nay. The naysay have it and the amendment has not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. Gentleman requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6F.
▶ 2:39:28Further proceedings on the question are For what purpose does Miss Po seek Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 2:39:59Clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Miss Poe of New Jersey number 005. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Miss Poe is recognized for five minutes to speak on her amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:40:18Uh supporting localities in their efforts to provide clean water is one of my top priorities on this panel and I know firsthand the danger of aging storm water sewer and flood infrastructure to our environment and health. New Jerseyy's ninth congressional district frequently experiencing devastating flooding.
▶ 2:40:40We need stronger storm water infrastructure to help frontline communities like uh the city of Patterson and car the town of Carney, both of which I represent manage increasingly they currently manage increasingly heavy rains and contaminated uh runoff.
▶ 2:41:00I was heartbroken by the tragic death from Hurricane Ida in 2021 from widespread catastrophic flooding throughout North Jersey and New York. My constituents are still are still reeling from the losses of their loved ones.
▶ 2:41:19Excessive runoff from Ida into the New Street Reservoir in Patterson also compromised drinking water for over 200,000 of my constituents. In incidents like these are preventable with sufficient sewer, storm water, and flood water investments. This is why I am introducing an amendment to help safeguard our communities.
▶ 2:41:46My amendment would require the the DP EPA to certify before implementing this bill that it will not increase sewer overflow, storm water discharges, or flooding risk. These terrible hazard and dangers personal property, businesses, local critical infrastructure, and most importantly, human life and safety.
▶ 2:42:12Any legislation from this committee must strengthen our aging water infrastructure, not weaken it. I urge my colleagues to join in support of my common sense amendment to protect our constituents from increased sewer, storm water, and flooding risk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Do any other members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Thank you, Mrs.
▶ 2:42:43Poe. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the amendment. I oppose this amendment. This is another amendment that would needlessly delay the implementation of the legislation. The underlying bill will streng strengthen section 402 permits by requiring more specific details in the permits, support communities with combined sewer overflow systems that continue to make improvements and upgrades of their systems to mitigate discharges and ensure that the data and metrics used under the Clean Water Act to regulate water are transparent and rigorously developed. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 2:43:12Are there any other further speakers on this Seeing none, are there amendments to the Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman, may I request a uh recorded vote?
▶ 2:43:43General lady requests a vote on the on the the amendment as previously announced pursuant to committee rule 6F. Further proceedings on the question are postponed. For what purpose does Mr. Ryan seek Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 offered by Mr. Ryan of New York number Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. Mr. Ryan is recognized for five minutes to speak on his amendment.
▶ 2:44:13Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment addresses something that I think is certainly not partisan, not blue or red. It is an American principle to have clean water. So my amendment would ensure that the provisions of this bill won't result in an increase of pollutants being discharged into our waterways including and specifically an increase in discharge of chemicals like PAS and other forever chemicals that are proven to be toxic as well as nutrients associated with excessive
▶ 2:44:44algae growth and algal bloom. It is widely known but important to restate that exposure to PAS and other PFOAs can and has been harmful and been proven to be harmful to human health. Exposure can result in reproductive health issues, developmental delays in children, increased risk for multiple forms of cancer and the list goes on and on.
▶ 2:45:06In my district in the Hudson Valley, tens of thousands of my constituents uh living in one of our largest cities of Newberg as well as the town of Newberg and the town of New Windsor face these health consequences every single day and have to make that choice when deciding to turn on their taps.
▶ 2:45:22Their main source of drinking water for the city of Newberg for decades has been dealing with unacceptable levels of PAS My amen my amendment would ensure that as we move uh any legislation forward, constituents in my district and across the country don't have to worry about their kids or any of their family members being exposed to these toxic forever chemicals.
▶ 2:45:45Um, in addition, I just briefly want to make clear that the overall underlying bill uh will only further pollute our waters on several other dimensions and roll back important uh regulations that we've had in place. Uh, with that, I urge adoption of my amendment and yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The gentleman yields. Do any members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Thank you, Mr. Ryan. to recognize myself for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment.
▶ 2:46:15I oppose this amendment. This amendment would stop the progress the underlying bill is making by requiring the EPA to make an impossible arbitrary determination, opening up the permitting process to even more litigation, delay, and unintended consequences. As a reminder, this bill does not prohibit the regulation of any pollutants. In fact, it requires permits to include more specific metrics and provide clarity for per for permit holders so they are able to stay in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Thank you. And I yield back. Are there any further speakers on this amendment?
▶ 2:46:46Seeing none, are there amendments to the Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. The nays have it and the amendment does not agreed to. Mr. Chair, can I request is recognized? Uh, I'd like to request a recorded vote, please. Gentlemen requests a vote on the amendment as previously announced.
▶ 2:47:09Pursuant to the committee rule 6F, further proceedings on the question are The committee will briefly stand in recess before we return to consider our postponed votes.
▶ 3:08:02Look at everybody here.
▶ 3:08:39You're good. There's a lot of stand. So, so the committee will reconvene. But before we have votes, I would like to recognize uh ranking member Larson to say a few words about the loss of Mr. Yeah, it's uh um like to take a moment to recognize uh years of service at uh one of TNI's most senior and colorful members.
▶ 3:09:08Um he who's going to be leaving this committee to join uh Rick Crawford and others at the Intel Intel committee. Uh, I'm talking about, of course, the one and only Steve Cohen. Steve joined Are we coming to praise him or No. Uh, Steve joined the committee during uh his first term in 2007 and c and he has been invaluable member for the time he's been here.
▶ 3:09:38He's left his mark on numerous bipartisan bills and laws uh the committee has sent to president's desks over the years, including three surface transportation bills, three FA reauthorizations and six water resource development acts. Uh I think Sam would agree with me that as the uh aviation subcommittee ranking member, Steve has been a partner to both of us as we work to pass last year's bipartisan FA reauthorization and get it signed into law.
▶ 3:10:04His contributions have helped ensure we passed a bill that increased safety, improved airports, invested in aviation workforce and increased accessibility uh to uh flying for the flying public. Perhaps most importantly though, Steve's been an advocate for the people of Tennessee's 9inth district during his time, helping to secure millions in infrastructure investments for his district, fighting for legislation to reduce impaired driving, and advocating for improved pedestrian safety.
▶ 3:10:31It has been a pleasure to serve with him, to travel with him um and uh his contributions will uh certainly be missed. His particular brand of humor won't be missed. Um but on behalf on behalf of everyone on our side of the aisle, um Steve, thanks for your tireless work. I wish you all the best over there at Intel. I yield back.
▶ 3:11:05I would also like to uh echo um the comments of uh uh of the ranking member. Um Steve, it's been a pleasure to work with you. I didn't used to like Steve Cohen um until I started traveling with him and which I would encourage every member particularly freshman members to to travel um with other members because you get to know them very very well. In fact, there's some things that you see on a Kodell that can't be unseen.
▶ 3:11:36But it's uh it's literally been a pleasure to work with you and and uh and you've done it. your leadership on the aviation subcommittee uh has been u has been exemplary and without you we wouldn't have been able to get you know that huge achievement done that we did in the last congress. So uh I really hate to see you go um I really hate to see you uh uh to see you go and that's coming from the heart. So um Mr. Burchett. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:12:05I know I've known Steve Cohen longer than any member of this committee. we were in the state legislature together and he's been a constant thorn in my side since then. We actually um raised the speed limit in Tennessee. Um and then when we were on the in the state senate together um we brought Isaac Hayes to the floor and we sang the theme from shaft and that was one memory. We our mutual friend Steve Craropper co-wrote sitting on the dock of the bay.
▶ 3:12:34um still good friends and but I always remember Steve. That's why people always on me about being his friend. But dad gamut, I don't care. I'll take the hit because he called my mama uh when my daddy died and I will never forget that. I I love I love my mom and daddy more than anything. And Steve was always so kind to them when they came to the state senate. And uh he was just a true gentleman to them. And um regardless all the other stuff, he's still my one of my best buddies.
▶ 3:13:03And thank you, brother. All right, we're going to we're going to go back to uh the amendments that we had a recorded vote um called
▶ 3:13:33for. First amendment uh Larson number one offered by Mr. Larson on which a recorded vote was ordered um and which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still ordered? Yes, it is. So, let's see. Vote still uh requested. So members please record your votes using electronic system. The chairman will be voting no. Ranking vote I ranking vote I open the board.
▶ 3:16:05Is that it? Do any other members wish to be Does anybody wish to change their vote? Seeing none, close the board and give me the tally. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yays and 35 nazs. By vote of 30 yays, 35 nazs. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:16:34next amendment, Titus 173, offered by Miss Titus on which a recorded vote was ordered ordered. Um, which was not agreed to by voice vote. Um, is a recorded vote still called for? A recorded vote is still requested. Members record their votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no. Franklin vote yes. Open the board.
▶ 3:17:13Has everyone voted that wishes to vote? Does anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing no one, close the board. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yays and 35 nazs. I voted 30 yays and 35 nays. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:17:35Next amendment stance 031 offered by Miss Titus on which a recorded vote was ordered and which uh was not agreed to by voice vote. Is recorded vote still ordered? Yes. Record vote is still requested. Open the board. The chairman will be voting uh no vote. Yes.
▶ 3:18:26Mr. Taylor, close the board. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yays and 35 nazs. A vote of 30 yays and 35 nazs. The amendment is not agreed to. Next will be H oil 013 offered by Mr.
▶ 3:18:56Garmeny which a recorded vote was ordered which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still ordered? Yes, it is. Open the board. Chairman intends to vote no. Rank and vote yes.
▶ 3:19:27everyone voted that wishes to vote? Does anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing no one, close the board. Mr. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yays and 35 nazs. A vote of 30 yays and 35 nays. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:19:49Next amendment, um, Sykes for 46 offered by Miss Sykes on which a recorded vote was ordered and which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still ordered? It is. The recorded vote is still ordered. Open the board. Chairman intends to vote no. Raise the vote. Yes.
▶ 3:20:24Has everyone voted that wishes to vote? Does anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing no one, uh, close the board. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yays and 35 nazs. I voted 30 yays and 35 nays. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:20:50Next amendment is Scolton027 offered by Mrs. Scolton on which a recorded vote was ordered which was not agreed to by voice voted. Is a recorded vote still ordered? A quarter vote is still ordered. Um open to board chairman intends to vote no. Ranking vote yes.
▶ 3:21:44Mr. Shre, close the board. Mr. Chairman, on that vote there are 30 yays and 34 nazs. I voted 30 yays, 34 nazs. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:22:14Next amendment is McDonald number 015 offered by Miss McDonald Rivet in which a recorded vote was ordered which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still ordered? It is a recorded vote is still ordered. Um open the board chairman intends to vote no. Ranking a vote yes.
▶ 3:22:59Where'd Brian go? Close the board. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yays and 33 nazs. I voted 30 yays and 33 nays. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:23:22Next amendment, Freriedman 01 offered by Miss Freriedman in which a recorded vote was ordered and which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still requested? It is recorded vote is still requested. Open a board. Chairman intends to vote no. Ranking the vote yes.
▶ 3:23:58close the board. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yays and 33 nays. A voted 30 yays and 33 nays. The amendment is not agreed to. The next vote dier010 offered by Mr. Dany in which a recorded vote was ordered and which was not agreed to by voice vote. A recorded vote is still requested.
▶ 3:24:28Um chairman intends to vote no. Open the board. Rank the vote yes.
▶ 3:25:01everyone voted? Anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing no one, close the board. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yays and 33 nays. A vote of 30 yays and 33 nazs. The amendment is not agreed to. Next amendment is Sykes 47 offered by Miss Sykes in which a recorded vote was ordered and which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still ordered? Yes, it is.
▶ 3:25:31A recorded vote is still ordered. The chairman intends to vote no. Ranking a vote yes. Open the board. Is everyone voted? Anyone wish to change their vote? Close the board. Mr.
▶ 3:26:00Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yays and 33 nazs. A vote of 30 yays, 33 nays. The amendment is not agreed to. Next uh amendment uh Huffman 24 offered by Mr. Huffman in which a recorded vote was ordered and which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is recorded vote still requested? Yes, recorded vote is still requested. Um chairman intends to vote no.
▶ 3:26:29Ranking a vote yes. Open the board. everyone voted? Does anyone wish to change their vote?
▶ 3:26:59Seeing no one, close the board. Mr. Mr. Chairman, on that vote there are 30 yays and 33 nazs. Vote of 30 yays and 33 nazs. The amendment is not agreed to. Next amendment is Huffman one offered by Mr. Huffman which a recorded vote was ordered and which was not agreed to by voice voters. Is a recorded vote still ordered? Yes, it is. A recorded vote is still requested. Um the chairman intends to vote no.
▶ 3:27:29Random vote yes. Open the Fun bunch. Has everyone voted? Does anyone wish to change their vote?
▶ 3:28:01Seeing none, close the board. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yays and 33 nazs. A vote of 30 yays and 33 nazs. The amendment is not agreed to. Next amendment, uh, Johnson 27 offered by Mr. Johnson, Georgia, which recorded vote was ordered. Uh, which was not agreed to by voice vote. Is a recorded vote still ordered? It is. The chairman intends to vote no.
▶ 3:28:31Ranking a vote yes. Open to board. Has everyone voted? Does anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing no one, close the board. Mr.
▶ 3:29:00Chairman, on that vote there are 30 yays and 33 nazs. I voted 30 yays and 33 nays. The amendment is not agreed to. Next amendment offered by Miss Poe number five in which a recorded vote was ordered and which was not agreed to by voice vote. A recorded vote is still Chairman intends to vote no. ranking to vote. Yes. Open the board.
▶ 3:29:30Need to say it. Is everyone voted? Anyone wish to change their vote?
▶ 3:30:01Seeing no one, close the board. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 30 yays and 33 nays. A vote of 30 yays and 33 nays. The amendment is not agreed to. Next amendment uh Ryan 42 offered by Miss Ryan which recorded vote was ordered and which was not agreed to by voice vote is a recorded vote still ordered. Yes, it is. A recorded vote is still ordered.
▶ 3:30:30Um the chairman intends to vote no. Ranking vote yes. Open the Is everyone voted? Someone wish to change their vote. Seeing no one, close the board.
▶ 3:31:02Mr. Chairman, on that vote there are 30 ys and 33 nazs. A vote of 30 yays and 33 nazs. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3898 as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. All opposed signify by saying nay. Nay. It appear that eyes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended is agreed to.
▶ 3:31:30The question is now on the adoption of favorably reporting of HR 3898 as amended to the House of Representatives. All those in favor signify by saying nay. All oppose signify by saying nay. Nay. The eyes appear to have it. Like a recorded vote. I'd like a recorded vote. And I'd like to take into account the enthusiasm of the respective votes and determining recorded vote is requested.
▶ 3:32:00Members will record their uh votes using the electronic voting system. Um chairman intends to vote I rank vote no. Open the
▶ 3:32:34Has everyone voted? Does anyone wish to change their vote? Close the board. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 34 yays and 30 nays. A vote of 34 yays and 30 nazs. The bill as amended is agreed to and ordered favorably reported to the House. And without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Thank you.
▶ 3:33:07Thank you for participating in today's markup. I'd ask unanimous consent that each measure ordered reported today be reported as a single amendment nature of the substitute incorporating any amendments adopted. Without objection that is so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make all necessary technical clarifying conforming changes to each of the measures ordered reported today to reflect the actions of the committee and without objection that is so ordered.
▶ 3:33:29Pursuant to House Rule 22, clause 1, I'd ask unanimous consent that the chairman or his designate be authorized to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate on the legislation adopted today or any similar measure. Without objection, that is so ordered. I'd ask unanimous consent that the chairman after consultation with the ranking member have authority to strike or revise any provision of the measures ordered to reported today.
▶ 3:33:54It would cause a sequential referral to another committee or would cause the bill to be subject to a budget act or rule 21 cutgo. Point of order. Without objection, that is so ordered. Pursuant to house rule 11 clause 2L, I'd ask unanimous consent that all members of the committee have at least two calendar days in which to file any supplemental minority additional or descending views on the legislation adopted today. And without objection, that is so ordered.
▶ 3:34:18Pursuant to rule 6F of the rules on the committee of transportation infrastructure, I note the presence of a quorum for act all actions taken on all committee business today. And with that, the committee on transportation infrastructure has completed its business. The committee is adjourned.