Hillary Scholten

Ms. SCHOLTEN

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Ms. SCHOLTEN

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

Ms. SCHOLTEN

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the remarkable contributions of a woman who needs no introduction, Ms. Erica ``Rikki'' Miller, to our country and to the House of Representatives. For nearly the last decade, Rikki has served with integrity, compassion, and a deep sense of duty. Whether it was driving a Member as a humble staff assistant, enhancing the caucus communications, directing communications on energy policy for a senior Member of Energy and Commerce or helping a brand new freshman establish her office as chief of staff, Rikki approached every task with the same commitment--to make life better for the people we serve. Rikki's decade of congressional service began as an intern for Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, where she was soon hired full time as constituent relations and press assistant. After two years with Congresswoman Dingell, Rikki joined now Leader Jeffries inaugural leadership team. As their press assistant, Rikki helped plan the Caucus issues conference and lead the Caucus's communication efforts during the Mueller trials and historic first impeachment. She then spent four years with Congresswoman Kathy Castor as her communications director, where she led the team during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. After four years with Congresswoman Castor, Rikki was called back home to Michigan to be chief of staff for my district office. As chief, Rikki helped build the office from the ground up, leading the team through my first term. There, Rikki established herself as a mentor to those in the office, and to other chiefs as well. Public service isn't always glamorous. It demands patience, perseverance, and quiet strength. There are early mornings, late nights, and countless moments when the work you do goes unnoticed by the world outside. But it's people like Rikki who keep everything running--the unseen hands and steady hearts behind the work we all depend on, whether we realize it or not. Rikki has been so much more than a House employee, she's been a mentor to new young staff, a colleague, and a friend to all. Rikki lights up any room she walks in. She knows everyone's name and treats everyone the same. She has shared her knowledge generously, guided others through challenges, and shown us what public service truly looks like. Many of us here have learned from her--not just how to do our jobs, but how to do them with purpose. We will miss Rikki and her steady presence, her joyful spirit, and her years of experience. But we take comfort in knowing that the values she has instilled will continue to guide this workplace in the dozens of new staffers she has trained and inspired. She has left it stronger, kinder, and more resilient than when she arrived. On behalf of a grateful country, and especially the people of Michigan's 3rd Congressional District, we thank her.

Ms. SCHOLTEN

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of my constituent, Elgin Vines, who turned 90 years old on May 19, 2025. Through the segregation of the Jim Crow South, on stages big and small across the world, Mr Vines' career as a bassist continues to be a bridge in the jazz community--connecting worlds, hearts, and histories. Born on May 19, 1935, in Suffolk, Virginia, at a time when the odds were not in his favor, Mr. Vines charted a course that was uniquely his own. As a student at Norfolk State University with a Biology/Medical Technology major, Mr. Vines paid his tuition and fees with gigs along the Virginia Beach ``strip,'' before graduating as an ASCP-certified medical technologist. During that time, he was also a member of the house trio on the daily ``Morty Nevins Television Show'' for three years. In his eight-year stint as a bassist for the touring group ``The New Direction,'' Mr. Vines was a guest on national programs like The Tonight Show. He has also played alongside giants like Frank Sinatra Sr. and Jr., the Mills Brothers, and toured on the same circuits as Ella Fitzgerald and Elvis Presley. What Mr. Vines remembers most is not the glitz of the spotlight, but the dignity of people who, like him, believed music could tear down walls. Mr. Vines moved to West Michigan in 1972, where he married his wife of nearly 52 years, Jackie, and played bass for the Bennie Carew Trio-- quickly becoming an indispensable member of our local music community. Mr. Vines has been a member of the Grand Rapids Symphony Orchestra Jazz Ensemble, played for the Grand Rapids Public Museum and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum, and worked in many local trios. He has gifted his love of jazz to both neighbors and Hollyhock Lane parade-goers for decades. Mr. Vines is more than a bassist. He is a living example of compassion, resilience, and strength. Mr. Speaker, once more, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Mr. Elgin Vines for his lifelong impact. His rhythm has carried generations, and his soulful steadiness has graced every room he's walked into. I wish him another happy, healthy, and fulfilling year ahead.

Ms. SCHOLTEN

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize the Kent District Library (KDL) on an extraordinary achievement. KDL's Talking Book & Braille Center has been honored as the 2025 Library of the Year by the National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled, a division of the Library of Congress. The Library of the Year award recognizes libraries that excel in providing accessible reading materials and services to those with visual, physical, or print disabilities. Libraries receiving this award have a strong effectiveness in reaching these individuals through a wide range of accessible formats, including braille and audio. KDL has incorporated numerous accessible resources, including video magnifiers, adaptive gaming controllers, and wearable artificial-vision devices. Additionally, they have introduced LEGO Braille Brick kits in both English and Spanish. KDL is a pillar of our community, Year after year, their commitment to academic excellence and innovative programming has helped generations of children and adults to reach their full potential. Their Talking Book & Braille Center has long been a vital resource for West Michiganders who are often underserved in traditional library systems. I am incredibly proud that our very own Kent District Library has set the gold standard. On behalf of Michigan's 3rd Congressional District, congratulations to those at the Kent District Library's Talking Book & Braille Center who continue to maintain a strong dedication to serving readers with disabilities. This Center has touched the lives of over 750 children and adults across our state. Today and every day, we thank this institution for its lasting impact on our West Michigan community.

Ms. SCHOLTEN

Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Paige Kitts. Paige is a member of Girl Scouts of Michigan Shore to Shore, Troop 4504. She has exemplified extraordinary leadership, innovative problem-solving, and a demonstrated commitment to making a lasting, positive impact by earning the most prestigious award in Girl Scouting, the Gold Award. Gold Award Girl Scouts are recognized as trailblazers who are willing to tackle the most pressing challenges facing their communities with measurable, sustainable, and far-reaching results. To earn the Girl Scout Gold Award, high school-age Girl Scouts must identify and investigate an issue they care about, devise a plan, and then lead a team of experts and community members to implement a project that produces lasting change. Over the course of 1 to 2 years, Gold Award Girl Scouts demonstrate significant initiative, commitment, and leadership, distinguishing them from their peers. Through their resourcefulness and perseverance, they embody the Girl Scout Law to truly make the world a better place. Paige's project, ``Growing Hope'', in partnership with Growing Roots, addressed the challenge of finding accessible programs and opportunities for those with disabilities in our community. Paige took action by designing and building a wheelchair-accessible garden bed to help existing programs become more inclusive. She created an instruction manual to share with other organizations, providing a supply list, step-by-step instructions for building, and insights regarding the benefits of wheelchair-accessible garden beds. This project will have a positive impact on our community for years to come. On behalf of Michigan's 3rd Congressional District, congratulations to Paige Kitts for achieving the highest distinction in Girl Scouting, the Gold Award. We thank Paige for her leadership and for making such a positive, enduring change in our community.

Ms. SCHOLTEN

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