Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act, but I rise for so much more than just simply to oppose this bill.

The Clean Water Act was enacted into law 50 years ago at a time when our rivers were catching fire, and the Great Lakes were declared dead. For 50 years, we have seen our water pollution decrease because of the efficacy of this law.

The Clean Water Act was not a perfect bill. No bill ever is. I will be the first to admit it needs reform, but this bill is not it.

Mr. Chair, while I rise today in opposition to this bill, I rise for so much more than that. I rise for the affordability crisis that is crippling the American Dream. This bill would shift costs from polluters to rural America, Tribes, and disadvantaged communities.

This is personal for me. Back home in Michigan our families are already struggling with the cost of clean water. The PERMIT Act will exacerbate this reality and task our most vulnerable communities with bearing the increased costs of polluters. I say let's hold the polluters accountable.

H.R. 3898 will also put these disadvantaged communities' public health at risk, jacking up the prices of their healthcare on top of their utility bills. I rise for affordability.

I also rise against the increasing contamination of PFAS, toxic forever chemicals, in our water. Communities throughout west Michigan are working to combat PFAS contamination throughout our rivers and streams. This bill would protect PFAS polluters who put our families in harm's way.

The PERMIT Act will effectively place the responsibility for treating toxic pollution, including PFAS, lead, mercury, and arsenic toward the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chair, I also rise for States' rights. The majority is falsely claiming that certain States are abusing their authority, their literal States' rights, if they deny traditional energy projects in their States.

The States of Washington and New York have provided the committee with documents outlining that the projects they have denied would have failed to meet the State water quality standards, violated their State environmental policy acts, and would have adverse environmental impacts. The GOP is ignoring that fact and weaponizing false claims to weaken State and Tribal authority.

I thought my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were supportive of increased State control over regulations. The PERMIT Act would weaken the ability of States like my home State of Michigan to pursue more rigorous protections for local waters and make our communities more vibrant. I rise for States' rights.

Mr. Chair, I also rise for real permitting reform. We need it now more than ever to help increase the accessibility and the flexibility of permits that are issued for projects across the country, but not at the expense of our clean water.

We have lost over 50 percent of our wetlands in the United States of America. That comes at an increased cost. At a time when costs are rising and flooding becomes more frequent, destroying just 1 acre of wetland will increase costs by $8,000 in additional payouts by American taxpayers through the National Flood Insurance Program. We simply cannot afford the PERMIT Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the great State of Michigan (Ms. McDonald Rivet).

Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Chair, let me be clear. We need permitting reform. Red tape and layers of bureaucracy have crippled cities working to add housing, alternative energy sources, critical economic development projects, and, ultimately, it gets in the way of jobs. I concede that. It gets in the way of progress and even stops our agenda of lowering the costs for struggling families.

I support the idea of what this bill is trying to accomplish. However, the PERMIT Act in this current form is not the solution. It lacks common sense and ultimately hurts middle-class and working-class Americans.

Let's start here: The efficiency in government cannot come at the expense of clean water and lowering costs for all Americans.

If passed as is, the PERMIT Act will increase pollution in our public waters and strip State and Tribal rights to effectively protect their own waters. It will also dramatically increase water bills across the country, particularly in rural communities.

I proudly represent the city of Flint. We know devastating consequences of a lack of oversight of water quality. Over a decade later, my constituents are still dealing with the health and economic fallout, and the trust in government in our home communities will never be the same.

Efficiency is important. American industry will falter and families will suffer if unnecessary red tape gets in the way of innovation and building. However, as we cut red tape, we need to do so in a smart way, not in a way that will put clean water at risk, especially for the rural, Tribal, and low-income communities who stand to lose the most because of this bill.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would prohibit the implementation of any provisions in this bill that increase water pollution, jeopardize States' abilities to set their own water standards, or increase water utility costs for Americans.

This isn't radical environmentalism. This is moving forward on permit reform with common sense.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of the amendment.

Ms. McDonald Rivet moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3898 to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the following amendment:

Page 40, after line 16, insert the following: SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON DEPRIVING RURAL, TRIBAL, AND ECONOMICALLY-DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES OF CLEAN WATER.

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, and each State may not implement any amendment made by this Act that will result in--

(1) increasing the volume, toxicity, or concentration of pollutants in a waterbody that has been designated by a State or an Indian Tribe for--

(A) use supplying, or supporting the supply of, public water; or

(B) recreation;

(2) limiting the ability of the Administrator or a State to develop and implement a water quality standard, pretreatment requirement, or effluent limitation, solely on the basis of cost of compliance to the discharger; or

(3) increasing the rates charged for wastewater treatment services (including in rural, Tribal, or economically disadvantaged communities) as a result of transferring the cost for removing any pollutants, or treating such waterbody, to protect the public health or welfare.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just need to say that I agree with so much of what my colleague said about the need for real permitting reform, but that is not this bill. The PERMIT Act is nothing more than a dirty water bill dressed up in a fancy name.

We need to come back to the table, reject this bill, and pass real and meaningful permitting reform that will not pass the cost of polluted waters on to vulnerable, rural, and Tribal communities. Let's come back to the drawing board and reject the PERMIT Act.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, again, you will hear no argument from me about the need for permitting reform.

We do need reform, but this bill is not what we need. It doesn't just cut red tape. It cuts all of the tape that has protected our clean water for 50 years since the Clean Water Act was signed into law.

The reason we don't have horror stories of rivers catching on fire and the Great Lakes being declared dead is because of the protection that the Clean Water Act has provided. Despite dramatic population growth, the number of waters meeting water quality standards has doubled since the CWA's passage in 1972.

Mr. Chairman, I will be the first to admit that we need reform of our permitting process, but this dirty water bill is not it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Congressional Record a list of over 180 conservation, recreation, hunting, fishing, environmental, Tribal, and State organizations that oppose the PERMIT Act.

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

Adirondack Council, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Alliance for Appalachia, Alliance for Sustainability, American Fisheries Society, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, American Rivers Action Fund, American Sustainable Business Network, American Whitewater, Appalachian Citizens' Law Center, Arkansas Wildlife Federation, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Bayou City Waterkeeper, Beaverdam Creek Watershed Watch Group, Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Black-Sampit Riverkeeper, Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, Businesses for Bristol Bay, California Environmental Voters, Californians for Weston Wilderness.

CalWild, Center for Biological Diversity, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Legal Alliance, Children's Environmental Health Network, Chispa Arizona, Citizens Action Coalition of IN, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Citizens to Conserve and Restore Indian Creek, City of Goshen, Indiana, Stormwater Department, Clean Water Action, Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin, Climate Justice Alliance, Commercial Fisherman for Bristol Bay, Committee on the Middle Fork Vermilion River, Community Water Center, Connecticut League of Conselvation Voters, Connecticut River Conservancy, Conservation Alabama, Conservation Coalition of Oklahoma.

Conservation Council for Hawai'i, Conservation Federation of Missouri, Conservation Law Center, Conservation Northwest, Conservation Society of San Antonio, Conservation Voters New Mexico, Conservation Voters of PA, Crawford Stewardship Project, Delaware Nature Society, Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Earth Charter Indiana, Earthjustice Action, Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine, Reclamation (EPCAMR), Elkhart River Restoration Association, Endangered Habitats League, Environmental Advocates NY, Environmental Defenders of McHenly County, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental League of Massachusetts, Environmental Working Group, Eureka Recycling, Flow Water Advocates, Food & Water Watch, Freshwater Future, Friends of Bell Smith Springs, Friends of the Boundary Water Wilderness, Friends of the Fox River, Friends of the Mississippi River, Friends of the Rouge, Georgia Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes Business Network, Great Lakes Odyssey Radio Hour, Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, GreenLatinos, Hays Residents For Land and Water Protection, Hip Hop Caucus, Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIC, Hoosier Environmental Council, Huron Pines, Huron River Watershed Council, Hydropower Reform Coalition (HRC), Illinois Division lzaak Walton League of America, Illinois Environmental Council, Indiana Conservation Voters, Indiana Forest Alliance, Indiana Retired Teachers Association, Indiana Sportsmens Roundtable, Indiana Wildlife Federation.

Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Wildlife Federation, lzaak Walton League of America, lzaak Walton League of America- National Great, Lakes Committee, Izaak Walton League, Ohio Division, Just Transition Northwest Indiana, Kentucky Resources Council, Kentucky Waterways Alliance, Labadie Environmental Organization (LEO), Lake Erie Advocates, League of Conservation Voters, Llano River Watershed Alliance, Maine Conservation Voters, Market Square Presbyterian Church, Harrisburg, PA, Maryland Nonprofits, Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, Michigan City Sustainability Commission, Michigan Climate Action Network, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, Mill Creek Alliance, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Milwaukee Water Commons, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota Division Izaak Walton League of America.

Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Minnesota Trout Unlimited, Montana Wildlife Federation, MS Communities United for Prosperity (MCUP), N.C. Coastal Federation, National Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation Association, National Wildlife Federation, Native American Rights Fund, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Natural Resources Defense Council, NC League of Conservation Voters, Nebraska Wildlife Federation, Nevada Conservation League, Nevada Wildlife Federation, New Hampshire Audubon, New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Next 100 Coalition, North Carolina Wildlife Federation, North Dakota Wildlife Federation, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, NY/NJ Baykeeper, Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio River Foundation, One Mississippi, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon League of Conservation Voters, Parable of the Sower Healing Center (Intentional Community Cooperative), Park Watershed, Partners for Clean Streams, Planning and Conservation League, Prairie Rivers Network, Restore America's Estuaries, River Alliance of Wisconsin, Riverkeeper, SalmonState, Save Our Water, Save the Dunes, Sierra Club, Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, Sociedad Ornitologica Puertorriquena, Inc, South Dakota Wildlife Federation, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Southern Environmental Law Center, Texas Conservation Alliance, The Alaska Center, The Alliance for Appalachia, The Land Conservancy of McHenry County,The Michigan Forest Association, Town of Clermont, Trout Unlimited, United Tribes of Bristol Bay, Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribal Communities, Upper Sugar River Watershed Association, Upstream Pgh, Valley Sewardship Network, Vermnont Natural Resources Council, Virginia Conservation Network, Virginia League of Conservation Voters, Washington Conselvation Action, Washington State Department of Ecology, Waterkeeper Alliance, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, WaterLegacy, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Wetlands Watch, Wild Salmon Center, Wildlife for All, Winyah Rivers Alliance, Wisconsin Conservation Voters, Wyoming Wilderness Association.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, we must think carefully before we act today about what will be lost when the PERMIT Act is signed into law. As I stated throughout our proceedings today, I agree, we need permitting reform, but this bill is not it.

We can come back to the table and come up with solutions that will do both: enhance the speed, clarity, and efficacy with which we issue permits in the United States of America without polluting our water.

We have to think about the 50 percent of wetlands that have been lost, the over 70 percent of rivers and streams that are losing their protections and could join that 50 percent in being lost forever.

As an avid outdoorswoman who loves to hunt and fish--our entire family is four-season anglers throughout the great State of Michigan--I urge my colleagues to think carefully about what we will be losing.

We can come together and advocate for meaningful permitting reform. We need staff to administer permits. The current administration cannot gut Federal agencies on one hand and claim to want speedy Federal processes on the other.

The Army Corps' three senior-most experts have left the agency, as well as an additional 15 to 30 percent of the regulatory staff. This has impacted west Michigan in particular, as we have seen firsthand additional delays under this administration in permitting from the Army Corps.

The PERMIT Act simply directs the Corps and EPA to rewrite Federal rules, again stoking even more uncertainty. My Democratic colleagues and I agree that we need to issue permits more expeditiously in this country. We can do that while not giving up access to clean water.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, despite our friendship, I do oppose Mr. Bean's amendment, yet support the programs that have been implemented in Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey, and we want them to continue.

However, Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to legislatively mandate approval of a program, without changes, that was adopted without the proper and necessary oversight and review.

The Clean Water Act was specifically enacted as a Federal-State partnership.

The Environmental Protection Agency has approved 47 States to implement the point source discharge program under section 402 of the Clean Water Act, and having States as coregulators makes comprehensive implementation of this program possible.

However, far fewer States have sought approval to regulate the discharge of dredge-and-fill materials under section 404 of the act, again with only New Jersey and my home State of Michigan currently approved to implement this authority.

We do hope Florida will go back to the administration and seek approval, once again, but this amendment relates to Florida's attempts to receive approval of its own section 404 program without the proper process.

In 2024, a Federal district court struck down the approval of Florida's 404 permit authority on the grounds that both the State and Federal agencies failed to follow the rules in approving the State's program.

I am not opposed to the State of Florida or any State seeking to manage 404 authorities within its borders. In fact, I have been a huge champion of this program.

The State of Florida can pursue implementing a 404 program but through the proper approval process through the administration. Congress should not mandate a program that has been deemed deficient by the courts.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 2.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

This amendment doubles down on two of the bad ideas in the base of the text of the PERMIT Act: limiting a State's right to protect its own water resources and limiting legitimate civil action on harmful permits.

This amendment limits lawsuits to within 30 days of a Clean Water Act section 401 certification, with the very high bar of imminent, irreparable economic harm. Not only is this hard to prove, but impacts can come in many forms beyond basic economic impacts.

Further, if the court doesn't act within the amendment's arbitrary shot clock, the suit is automatically denied with prejudice, meaning that the suit can't be brought again, through no fault of the harmed party.

Finally, this amendment requiring any suit to be filed within 30 days also applies to the operation of whatever the license or permit is for. As we know, many infrastructure projects are designed to be in service for 100 years. Who knows what impacts might come 50 or 75 years down the road or what changes will occur if the company stops maintaining a facility in the future. This provision is dangerous and a shortsighted assault on the ability to maintain clean water.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, this amendment doubles down on two of the bad ideas in the base text of the PERMIT Act: limiting a State's right to protect its own water resources and limiting legitimate civil actions on harmful permits. I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, the gentleman's amendment would change the abandonment threshold for certain agricultural lands that had historically been wetlands.

Under the 1985 Swampbuster Act, farmers are discouraged from converting wetlands to farmland by making farmers ineligible for Federal farm program benefits if they drain, dredge, or fill wetlands for agricultural production after 1985.

However, since 1985, the Clean Water Act has recognized that certain prior converted cropland would not be subject to the Clean Water Act permitting if those agricultural lands remain in production and are not abandoned for more than 5 years.

This 5-year abandonment threshold has been in place for over 40 years and has balanced the need for certainty for farmers with the reality that some of these areas might revert back to critically important wetlands if abandoned by the farmer.

The gentleman's amendment would upend this established practice and create more uncertainty on whether a renewed wetland is or is not subject to Federal protections.

In light of the ongoing assault on Federal wetland protections undertaken by the Supreme Court, the Trump administration, and this bill, I do not support adding more uncertainty to the protection of critical waters and wetlands.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment for all the reasons asserted previously and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be more appropriate in a bipartisan Water Resources Development Act instead of a toxic, partisan assault on the Clean Water Act.

Addressing the water supply needs of communities ought to be something we all agree on.

While the gentleman's amendment would seek to address water supply needs through aquifer recharge projects conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, it is being offered to a bill that will roll back clean water protections and increase costs for vulnerable communities.

I urge the gentleman and other supporters of this amendment to engage with the bipartisan collaborative Water Resources Development Act process to move their proposal forward. We would love to talk to him about it.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment in this context, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We invite this amendment in a separate Water Resources Development Act process.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I am generally an agreeable person, but I do have to oppose this amendment, as well, offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, as I have said throughout the proceedings today, I agree with Mr. Crawford that we have an outdated and overly cumbersome permitting process right now that is in dire need of reform. It is increasing costs. However, the PERMIT Act and Mr. Crawford's amendment do nothing to address that. In fact, they add to the confusion and the burden.

I oppose the continued weakening of Federal protections over our wetlands and streams, as well, and I oppose this amendment because it further weakens any remaining Federal protections to address impacts to these critical water bodies.

There has been an ongoing assault on Federal wetlands protections undertaken by the Supreme Court, the Trump administration, and this bill.

As a result of the Sackett decision, historic Federal protections were lost on over 50 percent of our wetlands and up to 70 percent of our rivers and streams. As a four-season angler, I can tell you I take this personally.

Now, the Trump administration is undertaking a rule to further erode Federal protections on wetlands and streams well beyond and potentially in contravention to the Sackett decision.

The PERMIT Act doubles down on these weakenings of Federal protections and goes well beyond Sackett and is wholly inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the Clean Water Act.

The Crawford amendment, while potentially well-intentioned, by focusing on mitigation of wetlands impacts, misses the mark by letting inferior mitigation proposals be deemed sufficient. This includes mitigation proposals in different watersheds than impacts, mitigation options that do not address lost wetland functions, or removing mitigation requirements for so-called temporary impacts to wetlands.

We all remember deadly flash floods overwhelming local communities this summer, a story that, unfortunately, will continue to unfold in more and more communities across the country as extreme weather events explode.

A root cause of those flash floods is the slow removal of the critical benefits that wetlands play in upstream communities.

I oppose the continued weakening of these Federal protections because of the harm that they cause to these critical wetlands.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The housing crisis is felt acutely in west Michigan. I have supported numerous bipartisan solutions to help get more affordable homes on the market, and permitting reform is a critical component of that.

As I have said, however, this amendment, as well as the PERMIT Act itself, does nothing to address it. Soon, homeowners won't be able to afford whatever home they are able to purchase and build because of the rising costs of flood insurance or the floods that will devastate those new homes.

At a time when costs are rising and flooding becomes more frequent, destroying just 1 acre of wetland will increase costs by $8,000 in additional payouts by American taxpayers through the National Flood Insurance Program.

We can come to meaningful permitting reforms together by increasing the staff that we have to administer permits and cutting red tape that is truly hindering these permits from getting executed expeditiously. I mentioned previously that the Army Corps lost its three senior-most experts, as well as an additional 15 to 30 percent of its regulatory staff. The confusion at the agency caused by this administration is adding to the increase in rising costs to the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Adding additional staff is just one component of the overall permitting reform process that we hope to engage in in a meaningful bipartisan way because we know that there are bipartisan solutions on the table.

In the past few years, we have seen the Supreme Court, the Trump administration, and the Republican Congress chip away at the historic Clean Water Act.

Under the Supreme Court's misreading of this critical law, decades- old protections have been slashed for over half of our wetlands and up to 70 percent of our streams, resulting in almost 90 percent of our wetlands and streams losing protection. This amendment only worsens those protections.

I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, this amendment is redundant. There are existing programs at the EPA that cover both nitrogen and phosphorus pollution control and mitigation for their impacts on impaired waters.

Perhaps worse, this new program does not come with dedicated appropriations, which means that if stood up, this program would have to pull resources away from well-established EPA efforts to support water quality improvements in communities. It is expensive, and it does nothing.

This amendment is window dressing for this bad bill. Instead, we should be working together on bipartisan efforts to support clean water and improve water quality.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, I am a huge supporter of Federal-State partnerships when it comes to protecting our waters and believe that localities and our States need to play a bigger role. However, this particular amendment is already in place. Without direct appropriations, we are tasking the Federal Government with creating even more programs that they don't have the resources to fulfill. It is costly and redundant, and that is why I am opposed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chairman, too much nitrogen and phosphorus in the water accelerates the growth of harmful levels of algae and bacteria. We see it firsthand in the Great Lakes every single year with the formation of algal blooms that are devastating to our Great Lakes, rivers, and streams. Significant increases in algae harm water quality, food resources, and habitats, and they decrease the oxygen that fish and other aquatic life need to survive.

The Clean Water Act has several regulatory and nonregulatory programs aimed at addressing nutrients, many of which suffer from the lack of Federal funding to truly make a difference. Adding a redundant program without funding doesn't help us roll back red tape and streamline permitting. It only adds to the problem.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source