House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee advances HR 3898, the 'Permit Act,' after hours of debate and dozens of failed amendments

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on Oct. 12 approved, on a recorded committee vote, HR 3898, the Promoting Efficiency Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act, known as the Permit Act, sending the measure to the House floor after hours of debate and dozens of proposed amendments.

Representative Collins, chair of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that the committee used as the base text. Collins described the measure as “a comprehensive package of common sense improvements to the Clean Water Act’s permitting processes,” saying the bill would “provide greater regulatory certainty” for infrastructure and energy projects and codify several prior agency practices.

Ranking Member Larson opposed the substitute and the manager’s amendment, arguing the changes “go far beyond promoting efficiency and predictability” and would “weaken the act by gutting the authority of the federal agencies” and undermine state and tribal ability to protect local waters. Larson said the bill would make it “much more difficult to keep water clean.”

Debate centered on several recurring themes: (1) clarifying the scope and timelines for section 401 water-quality certification and section 404 dredge-and-fill permitting under the Clean Water Act; (2) codifying exclusions to the definition of waters of the United States (WOTUS); (3) limiting judicial review windows and perceived “weaponization” of permitting by environmental litigation; (4) requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to consider whether required technologies are commercially available in the United States; (5) an exemption for aerially applied wildfire retardants from needing NPDES/NEPDES permits; and (6) commissions of reports or determinations about potential disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged communities, harmful algal blooms, PFAS and other contaminants, and drinking-water sources.

Supporters including Representatives Perry, Rausser, Starbuck, Shreve and others said the bill would reduce delays for construction, energy and water projects, lower regulatory costs for permit holders, and prevent what they described as litigation that indefinitely stalls projects. Representative Perry said the bill would “bring sanity to our nation’s water permitting system” and stressed that the measure requires EPA to ensure technologies required by permits are actually “commercially available in The United States.”

Opponents including Representatives Larson, Wilson, Seighton, McDonald Rivett, Sykes, Friedman and others warned the bill would weaken federal oversight and reduce protections for drinking water, wetlands and other waters relied upon by communities. Representative Wilson said the bill “shortens environmental reviews, limits public participation, restricts judicial oversight, and accelerates decisions that directly affect our air, our land, and our water.” Representative Seighton invoked the Cuyahoga River fire history as a reminder of the law’s purpose: “Water is life.”

A manager’s amendment offered by Chairman Graves — described by the chairman as technical fixes and clarifying language on section 401 and state assumption of section 404 programs — was agreed to by voice vote. The committee then considered more than two dozen member amendments. Many amendments were called for recorded votes; the committee repeatedly postponed further proceedings on specific amendments under committee rule 6(f) while recorded votes were held.

Votes at a glance (selected roll-call outcomes announced during the markup): - Amendment offered by Representative Larson (amendment No. 001): 30 yeas, 35 nays — failed. - Amendment offered by Representative Titus (No. 173): 30 yeas, 35 nays — failed. - Amendment offered by Representative Titus/Stanton (No. 031): 30 ayes, 35 nays — failed. - Amendment offered on behalf of Representative Hoyle (Garamen di/Hoyle No. 013): 30 yeas, 35 nays — failed. - Amendment offered by Representative Sykes (No. 046): 30 yeas, 35 nays — failed. - Amendment offered by Representative Skolten (No. 027): 30 yays, 34 nays — failed. - Amendment offered by Representative McDonald Rivett (No. 015) addressing Great Lakes protections: 30 yays, 33 nays — failed. - Amendment offered by Representative Friedman (No. 011) on water reuse/groundwater recharge: 30 yays, 33 nays — failed. - Amendment offered by Representative DeSaulnier (No. 010) addressing harmful algal blooms: 30 ayes, 33 nays — failed. - Amendment offered by Representative Huffman (No. 024) to preserve tribal section 401 authority: 30 yays, 33 nays — failed. - Final committee recorded vote to favorably report HR 3898 as amended: 34 yays, 30 nays — passed and ordered reported to the House of Representatives.

Several amendments sought targeted, substantive changes: Representative LaMalfa’s wildfire-related provision to exempt certain aerially applied retardants from NPDES requirements was debated at length; supporters said the change is necessary to preserve firefighting tools, while opponents warned of potential ecological and public-health impacts and urged research and safeguards. Representative Titus and others offered amendments designed to protect ephemeral streams and arid-region water supplies; those measures were rejected in recorded votes. Multiple amendments would have required EPA certifications or additional reports before implementation if the committee-approved text took effect; those also failed on recorded votes.

Committee members also debated federal staffing and capacity. Representative Garamendi and others warned that statutory changes presuming robust EPA and Army Corps capacity may not function as intended if staffing and funding are reduced.

Discussion vs. direction vs. decision: Much of the markup was deliberative: members proposed and debated dozens of amendments (discussion). A small number of amendments were adopted by voice (direction), and many were rejected on recorded roll calls (decision). The committee adopted a manager’s amendment, adopted the substitute as amended, and voted 34–30 to report HR 3898 favorably to the House.

What happens next: The committee ordered HR 3898 reported to the House and authorized staff to make technical and conforming changes. The chairman announced the committee’s authority to file conference motions with the Senate if needed and provided members two calendar days to file supplemental or dissenting views.

Quotes (selected): "This legislation represents a comprehensive package of common sense improvements to the Clean Water Act’s permitting processes," Representative Collins said. "I oppose the legislation… The Clean Water Act is the nation's bedrock environmental law for restoring and maintaining our nation's waters," Representative Larson said.

Ending: The committee completed its business and adjourned after recording a final 34–30 vote to report HR 3898 to the full House. Committee staff were authorized to make conforming technical edits and the chairman set follow-up procedures for additional member views and possible motions to go to conference.