SHIP Act

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, in recent years, Democrats have made historic investments in environmental justice, and the EPA has already put those dollars to good use. I think it is unfortunate that my colleagues across the aisle continue to attack good government programs.

Environmental justice, just to explain this, ensures that all Americans receive the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards. It is particularly important in rural communities, like the one I represent and like the one I imagine my colleague represents. Many of these rural communities are in the very districts my colleagues across the aisle are representing.

Rural communities and low-income communities have long been targeted by corporations, regulatory agencies, and local planning and zoning boards when siting polluting facilities.

Let me give you a list of the kinds of things we are talking about here: landfills, waste transfer stations, incinerators, garbage dumps, diesel bus and truck garages, auto body shops, smokestack industries, industrial hog and chicken processors, oil refineries, chemical manufacturers, and radioactive waste storage areas.

Because of this, these communities typically have lower property values, higher health disparities, and shorter lifespans. We are not talking about something trivial here. We are talking about serious concerns about your health, the length of your life, and what your property is worth.

Why would my colleagues try to defund any effort to improve the lives of people in rural and low-income communities?

I am sorry, but it is just another attempt to implement an extreme agenda to attack minority groups at all costs and to return to a time when environmental discrimination was the norm.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support our rural and low-income communities by rejecting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my colleague on the other side of the aisle said no one ever calls his office and talks about environmental justice. I understand. There are all kinds of words we use in Congress that people rarely talk to us about. They don't talk to us about many of the procedures that we have on the floor, all kinds of things that we do.

However, you do have people who call your office to say: Do you know what? I don't want that chemical manufacturer sited next to my house. I am worried about that hog farm that is coming down the road from me. I am worried about the garbage dump. I am worried about the health impacts that my family is experiencing because of where we live.

Maybe that didn't happen in your district. I will admit that everything doesn't happen in all of our districts, but there are certainly districts across the country where people are experiencing adverse health impacts. They are experiencing loss of property values because things have been sited in their neighborhood.

Maybe my colleague, like so many times here in Congress, just doesn't like the words. I understand. I have heard the term ``environmental justice'' so many times over the last couple of days, as if it is some kind of a discriminatory term, or as if it is some kind of term that they just can't get out of their mouth without feeling angry.

We can call it anything we want. We can call it poor siting of messy places. We can call it anything my colleagues want. To make sure that all Americans get a fair deal and that people don't have adverse health impacts, I am willing to change that, just like we can't say ``climate change'' without people getting upset.

I am happy, every time we have to discuss this, just to say ``extreme weather.'' Okay, it is extreme weather. It is too much melting. It is too much heat. Too much of things that aren't supposed to happen and going wrong--the hottest summer on record, melting of the polar ice cap, and people who live in communities like mine experiencing the greatest heat in the ocean of any oceans on Earth.

These are things that are impacting all of us. I will call it whatever my colleagues like, but we have to do something about it. We have to have equity here, and we have to make sure it is a fair deal for everybody.

I heard you didn't like the term ``tree equity.'' I get it. It is one of those things that you just think: What are we talking about now?

In fact, urban areas have changed. I am so fortunate that I live in the most forested State in the Nation. I don't know what it is like where my colleague lives. If my colleague lives on top of a hill, maybe there are some trees up there. It makes a huge difference if you are in a part of the city that has trees, if your playgrounds are paved and black and hot in the summer, or if your playgrounds have some trees and shade and some cover so kids can go out and play. We are just talking about kids being able to play on the playground and having a decent life.

When we are talking about making sure we plant trees, which often my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say is a really good idea, we go ahead and believe we should plant more trees.

Let's not get caught up in the terminology. I think there is a lot we could work on together here and that we believe in together. This amendment to disregard all funding for environmental justice--tell me what you want to call it--that is just not appropriate and is not how we should be funding our environmental laws and not how we should be dealing with climate change.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, we are only 14 days away from a government shutdown, and instead of focusing on keeping the government open, we are working on a bill that is going nowhere.

The draconian cuts that are proposed in this bill violate the agreement reached by former Speaker McCarthy and President Biden and that were memorialized in statute in Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

We would not be teetering on the brink of a government shutdown if my Republican colleagues had held up their end of the bargain.

Now we are here today to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, such as the drought, flooding, severe storms, and wildfire events we are experiencing.

As of October 10, the United States has experienced 24 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each. This is a new record.

This amendment seeks to prohibit funding that will result in more resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future generations.

Not investing in strategies that minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change and instead spending billions in disaster relief shows my Republican colleagues are not thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer. Our economy, our health, our livelihoods, our food security, and our quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to focus instead on addressing climate change and on making our Nation stronger, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, my colleague on the other side of the aisle has proposed this bill that would really slash and burn so many of the important programs that our President has implemented to tackle climate change.

Why did he have to do that?

I have been in Congress for about 15 years, and I am very fortunate to have served that amount of time. But since I came here, I have been dealing with colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have denied that climate change existed, who have done everything they could to support the oil and gas industry, and who have pushed back on any kind of legislation or funding or anything we could possibly do to deal with climate change, and 15 years later we are in a very serious situation.

Now, my colleague is proud of saying that it is a simple truth. It is a simple truth this, it is a simple truth that.

Mr. Chair, let me tell you a simple truth. Our planet is warming. We had the hottest summer on record, oceans are heating. The polar ice cap is melting. We are in a very serious state, and most scientists will say that things are happening much faster than we ever anticipated. Here we are having a ridiculous debate about something that is not actually going to go anywhere and a bill that is not going to happen with a party on the other side of the aisle that wants to cut everything we have already done in the last 2 years to support funding for climate change.

This is our responsibility to our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Chair, you can say that we are just going to handle it in my small town and my small State. I am just going to explain to you that the planet is warming as an entire entity. Yes, we have to deal with foreign countries, but we also have to make sure that our country is on the right track, that we are investing in renewable energy, that we are not putting our heads in the sand and just ignoring what is going on out there, that all of these things are critically important. We have to stop digging in our heels on every single bill and denying that climate change is real and making all kinds of crazy arguments about well, it is India's fault or China's fault or America can't do it.

We can do all these things. We can manufacture the batteries in this country. We can manufacture the solar panels in this country. That is much of what we have done in the last bill, the infrastructure bill, the IRA, investing in our country, and investing in American manufacturing so that this can be homegrown American energy.

Every time the gentleman talks about gas prices, he refuses to acknowledge that we are trying to end our dependence on gas and oil, we are trying to make sure we are an energy-independent nation, and, yes, that takes a transition. Nonetheless, at this moment in time, we have to make those investments in the future.

I have never seen a party so unwilling to invest in our economic future and to acknowledge what is actually happening in our daily lives and in our families' daily lives.

If the gentleman really listened to his constituents or took their calls or listened to what people are saying about their worries about the future, one of their greatest worries is what are we going to do about the warming planet?

What are we going to do about the number of days when kids can't go outside and play because it is too hot?

What are we going to do about making sure we are looking at our future together?

That is not what the gentleman is doing here. He is just denying that climate change exists. He is denying that we have real work ahead of us and we ought to be doing it together.

Once again, I oppose this horrible amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, as far as I can tell, this is just another attack on environmental justice. The Council on Environmental Quality is coordinating the development of an ocean justice strategy that will propose equitable and just practices to advance safety, health, and prosperity for communities that are residing near the ocean, the coast, and the Great Lakes. This amendment seeks to block that strategy.

Coastlines are home to approximately 40 percent of the United States population. Unfortunately, coastal communities do not share equitably in the benefits provided by the ocean or equitably bear the burden of the negative impacts of human activities associated with the ocean, such as climate change, coastal flooding, and other threats.

Environmental justice ensures that all Americans receive the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards. This amendment is just another way to attack minority groups at all costs and return the United States to a time when environmental discrimination was the norm.

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

Mr. Chair, once again, I am kind of caught in this challenge of not understanding exactly what it is that my colleagues don't like about the term ``environmental justice,'' or in this case, ``ocean justice.''

It seems like ``justice'' is a word that we are very comfortable with in a patriotic way that everyone understands. Justice is important in this country.

As a Member who represents as much coastline as anybody in here that is extremely impacted by the challenges that are going on in the ocean, such as sea level rise and extreme storms, I have to deal with these questions. I think it is totally appropriate to have a justice strategy in making sure that we have equitability in how we take care of people.

If you live in a community where it is underresourced and are impacted by these ocean storms that come at us with total surprise--for example, a winter storm or nor'easter, as we call them, or a hurricane in the southern part of the country, and there aren't resources to rebuild. Perhaps sea level rise is making it so that your community needs to be moved.

I was talking last night about the 31 Native communities in Alaska that have to be moved because of sea level rise. If you don't have a justice lens, somebody might turn around and just say: I am sorry. This community isn't valuable enough. You don't have the resources, and your people can't move their own homes. You can't deal with rebuilding the coastal protections, so the money is going somewhere else, to a wealthier community, to someplace where we think people matter more.

Those decisions are critical decisions about how we spend our Federal funds, about how we make sure the work we do is equitable. Climate change is having a huge impact on life on the ocean.

I do not want to criticize my colleague. I am sure he has put this forward in good faith, but the last I saw, Arkansas doesn't have an ocean, and my colleague is trying to make policy for those of us who represent ocean communities in the East, West, and South throughout this country, the 40 percent of the United States population that lives on the ocean. These are critical strategies for us.

We don't need to make the same mistakes that we made in the past with not having a lens of environmental justice. Why in the world would we want to turn back and have discrimination and make bad policy? Why in the world when we are facing some of the most severe crises we have ever seen? We have hurricanes that come on us with no warning, extreme storms in the winter, extreme storms at times of the year we never expected them.

I can go on for much more time than I have to talk about what just happened in my own State and the challenges people are worried about, about sea level rise, about the ocean impact

of storms. This would take away the opportunity to look forward on that and make sure that our funding is equitable, that all communities are taken care of, that all parts of the country, particularly those rural areas that probably my colleague represents and I represent that are often underresourced are thought about, as well.

Again, this is a misguided amendment. People are going after a language that either they just don't want to say or somehow don't believe in or want to bring us back to a time when we had discrimination in our Federal policy and how we spent our Federal funds. It is a misguided amendment. It is a bad idea.

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

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:

H.R. 16: Ms. Tokuda, Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Casten, Mr. Casar,

Mr. Sherman, Ms. Caraveo, and Mr. Sablan.

H.R. 33: Ms. Ross and Ms. Bonamici.

H.R. 34: Ms. Escobar, Mr. Tonko, and Mr. Nadler.

H.R. 56: Ms. Crockett.

H.R. 231: Mr. Cline.

H.R. 253: Ms. McCollum, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and Mr.

Cleaver.

H.R. 303: Mr. Kilmer.

H.R. 459: Ms. Castor of Florida.

H.R. 549: Mr. Gallego, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Mrvan, Ms.

Escobar, Ms. Titus, Mr. Evans, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Espaillat,

Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Ms. Adams, Ms. Balint, Mr.

Owens, and Mrs. Sykes.

H.R. 620: Mrs. Peltola.

H.R. 666: Mr. Bowman.

H.R. 679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 681: Ms. Wild, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Ms.

Balint, Ms.Crockett, and Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick.

H.R. 700: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Latta, Mr. Kelly of

Mississippi, Mr. Kim of New Jersey, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer, Mr.

Harder of California, and Mrs. Steel.

H.R. 722: Mr. Barr.

H.R. 770: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 795: Mr. Crow.

H.R. 807: Mr. Miller of Ohio, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Bucshon,

and Mr. Soto.

H.R. 809: Mr. Posey and Mr. Huizenga.

H.R. 866: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 873: Mr. Nehls.

H.R. 906: Mr. Steube and Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 972: Ms. Kelly of Illinois.

H.R. 1073: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1088: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 1118: Ms. Balint.

H.R. 1138: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1139: Mr. Newhouse, Mr. DesJarlais, and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 1150: Ms. Jayapal and Mr. Moylan.

H.R. 1191: Mr. Swalwell, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr.

Jackson of Illinois, and Ms. Crockett.

H.R. 1200: Ms. Van Duyne and Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 1235: Mr. Sherman.

H.R. 1250: Mr. Costa.

H.R. 1259: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 1277: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Green of Texas, Ms.

Porter, Ms. Leger Fernandez, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Casten, Mrs.

Cherfilus-McCormick, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. DesJarlais, Ms. Norton,

Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Craig, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mrs. Dingell,

Mr. Morelle, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,

Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Barragan, and Mr. Huffman.

H.R. 1278: Mr. Moulton.

H.R. 1290: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 1295: Mr. Schiff.

H.R. 1318: Ms. Titus and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 1385: Ms. Pingree and Mr. LaHood.

H.R. 1432: Mr. Davis of Illinois.

H.R. 1437: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 1447: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 1483: Mr. Raskin.

H.R. 1488: Mr. Tonko and Mr. Horsford.

H.R. 1503: Mr. Tonko.

H.R. 1517: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 1535: Mr. Davis of North Carolina and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 1555: Mr. Cardenas.

H.R. 1572: Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Harder

of California, Mr. Raskin, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Posey,

and Mr. Owens.

H.R. 1614: Mr. Costa.

H.R. 1623: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 1637: Mr. Ciscomani, Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, and Mr.

Ryan.

H.R. 1638: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 1643: Mr. Gomez.

H.R. 1679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1721: Ms. Crockett and Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 1728: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 1740: Mr. Allred.

H.R. 1758: Mr. Donalds.

H.R. 1763: Mr. Harder of California and Mr. Moskowitz.

H.R. 1770: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia.

H.R. 1777: Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Grothman, Mr.

Fleischmann, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 1788: Mr. Phillips, Ms. Scholten, Ms. Spanberger, Ms.

McCollum, and Mr. Beyer.

H.R. 1831: Mr. Burgess and Mr. Grijalva.

H.R. 1841: Mr. Rouzer.

H.R. 1842: Mr. Gallego.

H.R. 2365: Mr. Levin, Mr. Balderson, Ms. Caraveo, Ms.

Salinas, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Trone,

Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Brownley, Ms. Leger Fernandez, and Mr.

Veasey.

H.R. 2367: Ms. Lee of Nevada, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania,

Mr. Guest, Mr. Pappas, and Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 2370: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 2389: Mr. Moulton, Mr. Trone, Ms. Sherrill, Mr.

Horsford, Ms. Ross, Mrs. McBath, Mr. Mrvan, Ms. McCollum, and

Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas.

H.R. 2406: Mr. Barr, Mrs. Harshbarger, and Mrs. Lesko.

H.R. 2407: Mr. Burgess, Ms. Hoyle of Oregon, Mr. Mooney,

Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Morelle, Mr. Nickel, and Mr. Castro of

Texas.

H.R. 2410: Mr. Nickel.

H.R. 2412: Mr. Harder of California, Mr. Landsman, and Mr.

Cleaver.

H.R. 2431: Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer and Ms. Lee of Nevada.

H.R. 2510: Mr. Harder of California and Ms. Salinas.

H.R. 2550: Ms. Leger Fernandez.

H.R. 2583: Mr. Doggett, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Sewell,

and Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 2630: Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Steube, Mr. Fitzpatrick,

and Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia.

H.R. 2667: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia and Mr. Aderholt.

H.R. 2697: Mr. Vargas and Ms. Tlaib.

H.R. 2700: Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 2718: Ms. Blunt Rochester.

H.R. 2720: Mr. Carbajal, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Blumenauer, and

Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 2723: Mr. Moulton and Mr. Ryan.

H.R. 2736: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 2739: Mrs. Kim of California.

H.R. 2743: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. C. Scott

Franklin of Florida, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Newhouse.

H.R. 2814: Mr. Moore of Utah.

H.R. 2855: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 2869: Mr. Mfume.

H.R. 2871: Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 2891: Mr. Tonko.

H.R. 2929: Mr. Pappas.

H.R. 2955: Mr. Burgess, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Raskin, and Mr.

Goldman of New York.

H.R. 2957: Mr. Morelle and Mr. Allred.

H.R. 2987: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 3007: Mr. McGarvey.

H.R. 3029: Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania and Mrs. Miller of

West Virginia.

H.R. 3074: Mr. Carter of Louisiana and Ms. Scanlon.

H.R. 3108: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3137: Mr. Newhouse.

H.R. 3139: Mr. Ryan and Ms. Foxx.

H.R. 3145: Ms. Omar.

H.R. 3152: Mr. Simpson, Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. C.

Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Cline, Mr. Santos, Mr. Golden

of Maine, Mrs. Foushee, and Mr. Rouzer.

H.R. 3170: Mr. Pallone and Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 3184: Mr. Norcross.

H.R. 3192: Ms. Slotkin.

H.R. 3206: Mr. Gooden of Texas.

H.R. 3235: Mr. Huffman.

H.R. 3251: Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 3272: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3378: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 3380: Ms. Kuster and Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 3381: Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Norman, Mr. Babin, Ms.

Malliotakis, Mr. Soto, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Trone, Ms.

Manning, Mr. Ciscomani, Ms. Caraveo, Mr. Carey, and Ms.

Salazar.

H.R. 3394: Mr. Pallone, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Scanlon, Ms.

Brownley, Ms. Ross, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Deluzio, Ms. Tlaib, and

Mr. Trone.

H.R. 3410: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3413: Ms. Chu, Ms. Greene of Georgia, and Ms. Ross.

H.R. 3424: Mr. Tonko and Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 3425: Mr. Tiffany and Ms. Manning.

H.R. 3448: Ms. Spanberger.

H.R. 3464: Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 3468: Mr. Schiff, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Salinas, and Mr.

Goldman of New York.

H.R. 3473: Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

H.R. 3488: Mr. Grijalva and Ms. Velazquez.

H.R. 3492: Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida.

H.R. 3503: Mr. Lieu and Mr. Pocan.

H.R. 3518: Ms. Norton.

H.R. 3519: Mr. Gomez.

H.R. 3530: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Ms. DelBene, Mr. Swalwell,

Mr. Lieu, Ms. Ross, Mr. Neguse, and Mr. Schneider.

H.R. 3539: Mr. Crow and Mr. Molinaro.

H.R. 3549: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 3576: Mr. Smith of Washington and Mr. Vargas.

H.R. 3585: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 3589: Ms. Tokuda.

H.R. 3600: Mr. Larsen of Washington and Mr. Harder of

California.

H.R. 3601: Mr. Vargas, Mr. Moulton, and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3608: Mr. Ruiz.

H.R. 3618: Mr. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Wilson of Florida.

H.R. 3662: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 3679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3681: Mr. Levin.

H.R. 3730: Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 3755: Mr. Smucker.

H.R. 3774: Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Soto, Mr.

Sherman, Ms.

Craig, and Mr. Bilirakis.

H.R. 3782: Mr. Fry and Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 3792: Mr. Lieu, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Tony

Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Sherman, and

Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 3838: Mr. Cohen.

H.R. 3843: Mr. Pocan and Ms. Tlaib.

H.R. 3851: Ms. Van Duyne and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3859: Ms. Lofgren, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3867: Mr. LaLota.

H.R. 3875: Mr. Quigley and Mr. Mullin.

H.R. 3876: Mr. Crow.

H.R. 3879: Ms. Craig.

H.R. 3882: Mr. Deluzio and Mr. Joyce of Ohio.

H.R. 3916: Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Bice, Ms.

McClellan, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3923: Mr. McGarvey.

H.R. 3949: Mr. Fry and Mr. Latta.

H.R. 3965: Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 3988: Mr. Good of Virginia.

H.R. 3990: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4007: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4024: Ms. Matsui.

H.R. 4034: Ms. DelBene.

H.R. 4035: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 4040: Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4059: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 4061: Mr. Kildee.

H.R. 4076: Mr. Peters.

H.R. 4118: Ms. Crockett, Ms. Norton, Mr. Carson, and Ms.

Jackson Lee.

H.R. 4144: Mr. Yakym.

H.R. 4149: Mr. Carson.

H.R. 4157: Mr. Moskowitz, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Flood, and

Ms. Wild.

H.R. 4170: Ms. Ross and Ms. Balint.

H.R. 4174: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 4175: Mr. Hill.

H.R. 4183: Ms. Castor of Florida.

H.R. 4198: Mr. Hill.

H.R. 4202: Mr. Gottheimer, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Ms.

Spanberger, Ms. Scanlon, Ms. Crockett, Mr. Torres of New

York, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Trone, Mr.

Garcia of Illinois, and Mr. Lynch.

H.R. 4238: Mr. Timmons.

H.R. 4241: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 4249: Ms. Craig.

H.R. 4259: Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 4262: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 4273: Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 4274: Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 4295: Mr. Carter of Louisiana and Mr. Mullin.

H.R. 4314: Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4328: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia.

H.R. 4334: Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bergman.

H.R. 4384: Ms. Manning.

H.R. 4395: Mr. Baird.

H.R. 4432: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 4438: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 4466: Mr. McGarvey and Ms. Wilson of Florida.

H.R. 4475: Mrs. Watson Coleman.

H.R. 4478: Mr. Mills.

H.R. 4514: Ms. Greene of Georgia.

H.R. 4534: Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mr. Connolly, Ms.

Clarke of New York, and Ms. Wild.

H.R. 4561: Mr. McGovern and Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4562: Mr. Moulton and Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4563: Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 4566: Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 4577: Ms. Sherrill and Mr. Guest.

H.R. 4581: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 4587: Ms. Salazar and Ms. Lee of Florida.

H.R. 4598: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 4602: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 4612: Mr. Duarte and Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 4624: Mr. Carson, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Grijalva, and Ms.

Jackson Lee.

H.R. 4663: Mrs. Lesko.

H.R. 4702: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 4728: Ms. Schakowsky.

H.R. 4729: Ms. De La Cruz and Mr. Fry.

H.R. 4733: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 4745: Mrs. Kim of California.

H.R. 4750: Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 4758: Ms. Wexton, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Smucker, and Ms.

Barragan.

H.R. 4769: Ms. Scholten, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Garbarino, Mr.

Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Lawler, Mr. Goldman of New York, Mr.

LaLota, and Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

H.R. 4779: Mr. Doggett, Mr. Payne, and Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 4782: Mr. Blumenauer.

H.R. 4817: Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 4844: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 4886: Mr. Kildee.

H.R. 4895: Mr. Connolly, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Escobar, Mr.

Larsen of Washington, and Ms. Porter.

H.R. 4904: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 4914: Ms. Barragan.

H.R. 4919: Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, and

Mr. Frost.

H.R. 4921: Mrs. Miller of Illinois.

H.R. 4965: Ms. Garcia of Texas, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Ocasio-

Cortez, and Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 4970: Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer.

H.R. 5006: Ms. Stefanik.

H.R. 5008: Ms. Kamlager-Dove and Ms. Balint.

H.R. 5012: Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. Williams of Georgia,

and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 5013: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 5041: Mr. Ruiz.

H.R. 5094: Mr. Langworthy.

H.R. 5106: Mr. Womack.

H.R. 5107: Mr. Grothman.

H.R. 5110: Mrs. McClain, Ms. Foxx, Ms. Perez, Mr. Walberg,

Mrs. Houchin, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Bost, Mr. Williams of New

York, Mr. DesJarlais, and Mr. LaHood.

H.R. 5113: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 5130: Mr. Graves of Missouri.

H.R. 5136: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 5145: Mr. Bowman.

H.R. 5159: Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. LaHood, Mr.

Fitzpatrick, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Larson of

Connecticut, Mr. Comer, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Boyle of

Pennsylvania, Mr. Gottheimer, and Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 5169: Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Thompson of

California, and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 5171: Mr. Swalwell.

H.R. 5175: Ms. Norton, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr.

Moskowitz.

H.R. 5182: Mr. Fry and Mr. Owens.

H.R. 5184: Mr. Fallon, Mr. Crenshaw, and Mr. Meuser.

H.R. 5203: Mr. Mooney.

H.R. 5221: Ms. Eshoo.

H.R. 5233: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 5239: Ms. Lee of Florida.

H.R. 5242: Ms. Bonamici and Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 5245: Mr. Issa and Ms. Stefanik.

H.R. 5247: Mr. Sablan.

H.R. 5249: Mr. Moulton, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Carson, Ms.

Tokuda, Mr. Davis of North Carolina, and Mr. Case.

H.R. 5250: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 5252: Ms. Sherrill, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Blumenauer.

H.R. 5265: Mr. Stauber.

H.R. 5283: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

H.R. 5290: Mr. Tonko and Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5291: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5292: Mr. Tonko, Ms. Bush, Ms. Chu, and Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 5293: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5294: Ms. Bush and Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 5295: Mr. Tonko and Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5302: Mr. Waltz.

H.R. 5308: Mr. Costa and Mr. Ryan.

H.R. 5318: Mr. Davis of North Carolina.

H.R. 5323: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 5329: Mr. Takano.

H.R. 5342: Mr. Williams of Texas, Mr. Gooden of Texas, and

Ms. De La Cruz.

H.R. 5349: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 5351: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Veasey.

H.R. 5361: Mrs. Foushee.

H.R. 5368: Mr. Fry, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Van Drew, Mr.

Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Mills.

H.R. 5369: Ms. Barragan.

H.R. 5377: Mr. Davis of North Carolina.

H.R. 5379: Mr. Norman.

H.J. Res. 88: Mr. Babin, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mrs. Miller-

Meeks, Mrs. Houchin, Mr. Yakym, and Ms. Hageman.

H. Con. Res. 31: Mr. Huffman.

H. Con. Res. 44: Mr. Casar.

H. Con. Res. 59: Ms. Sanchez.

H. Con. Res. 61: Ms. Waters, Mr. Moulton, Ms. DeGette, Mr.

Casten, Mr. Levin, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Ms. Clarke of New

York, Ms. McClellan, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Casar, Ms. Balint,

Ms. Salinas, and Mr. Pocan.

H. Res. 50: Mr. Mooney, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cloud, and Ms.

Van Duyne.

H. Res. 77: Mr. Lynch.

H. Res. 100: Mr. Walberg.

H. Res. 108: Mr. Mike Garcia of California.

H. Res. 154: Mr. Khanna.

H. Res. 198: Mrs. Fletcher.

H. Res. 339: Mr. Donalds.

H. Res. 345: Mr. Nadler.

H. Res. 374: Mr. Frost.

H. Res. 451: Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mrs. Miller of

Illinois, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer, Ms. Budzinski, Mr. Davis of

North Carolina, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Sorensen.

H. Res. 492: Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Vasquez, Ms.

Stevens, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas,

Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Allred.

H. Res. 509: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H. Res. 585: Mrs. Torres of California, Ms. Lee of

California, and Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania.

H. Res. 615: Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

H. Res. 616: Mr. Peters, Mr. Keating, and Ms. Ross.

H. Res. 623: Mr. Moskowitz and Mr. Trone.

H. Res. 625: Mrs. Trahan, Mr. Costa, and Mr. Torres of New

York.

H. Res. 627: Mr. Ruppersberger, Mrs. Miller of Illinois,

Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Schiff, and Ms. Craig.

H. Res. 634: Ms. Schakowsky.

H. Res. 651: Mr. DesJarlais.

H. Res. 674: Mr. Moylan, Ms. Crockett, Ms. Norton, Mr.

Posey, Mrs. Peltola, Mr. Nunn of Iowa, Mr. Van Drew, Mr.

Donalds, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, and Mr.

Crenshaw.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering here on the legislation we are considering would prohibit any of the funds in this appropriations bill from being used to carry out so-called environmental justice activities.

This so-called environmental justice is nothing more, in the end, than a synthesis of divisive racial ideology and policies that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to promote with radical environmentalism.

Basically, they are taking the radical environmental policies perpetuated in the EPA and Interior through this administration, doubling down on them, injecting divisive race policies, and now creating a larger problem for the American people.

The entire ideology is based on the notion that Federal environmental funding should be allocated based on immutable characteristics. Let's think about that for a minute. Not only do we need to destroy the American economy with radical environmental policies, but we need to inject divisive race policies in the middle of it. That is where we are.

People are running around, going to the gas station to get gasoline. They are trying to power their homes. They are wondering why we are having massive instability around the world. They wonder why China is on the rise. They wonder why Iran is able to enrich itself by selling oil to China. They wonder why they can't afford to live their own lives while inflation is destroying their well-being. Now, we are injecting race into the middle of it all.

Biden's so-called Justice40 Initiative directs 40 percent of Federal clean energy and energy efficiency spending based on ethnicity, migrant status, and income status. You literally just can't make up this absurdity.

Here are some of the examples.

``Developing a roadmap to dismantle environmental racism'' in Brunswick, Georgia.

Ecology Action in Bloomington, Illinois, ``seeks to identify and develop mitigation strategies for disproportionate climate impacts . . . and increase tree equity.'' What in the hell is tree equity?

Supporting summer high school environmental internships in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ``to build climate resilience and connect mainly young people of color to life skills and environmental sector career pathways.'' However, a recent study conducted by President Obama's former Energy Secretary found, on average, solar workers make $12,000 a year less than oil and gas workers.

The fact of the matter is that we are destroying the American economy by chasing the climate agenda, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fully acknowledge and admit is being

driven by the climate agenda and that the American people must suffer higher inflation and higher costs--an inability to afford their own homes and their own cars to go about their own jobs and their own way of life--in order to pursue an agenda that everybody acknowledges that, even if we do everything my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we should do, wouldn't dent CO2 production relative to what is happening in China, India, and countries around the world.

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

Mr. Chairman, the fact is, I have not heard one constituent--not one constituent among the 750,000 people who I represent--come up to me and say: Do you know what I need, Congressman Roy? I need environmental justice funding.

Calls to my office are just begging for environmental justice funding. Has anybody had a constituent do that, call up and say: Will you please solve the world's problems with environmental justice funding? No.

Do you know what I have had? I have had phone calls to my office saying: I can't afford gas. I can't afford electricity.

I have had calls from workers from a refinery in my district saying that they are going to drive us out of business and that they don't know what they are going to do.

That is all a direct result of a radical agenda by Democrats in the White House, the administration, and my colleagues across the aisle in this Chamber and the other Chamber who are more interested in advancing a radical agenda than standing up for American citizens who simply want to live their lives.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a straightforward amendment. It would do what the American people want us to do, which is focus on our job here in this Chamber to deliver our constitutional duties and nothing more and not divide us by race while also destroying the American economy with radical environmentalism.

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

Mr. Chair, before I talk about this amendment, the gentlewoman referred to the importance of having trees. No one disagrees with that. Yes, I live in the Texas Hill Country, where live oaks are something we try to figure out how to protect, especially, for example, when you have an ice storm like earlier this year. You are out there figuring out a way to go save your trees by cutting limbs and figuring out how to preserve the beauty that God gave us. Nobody disagrees with that.

Nonetheless, the idea that a core responsibility of the Federal Government is tree equity is absurd. The State of Texas is the eighth largest economy in the world. We are perfectly capable of figuring out how to deal with trees.

We don't have any money. We are $34 trillion in debt, $2 trillion a year in deficit spending, and we are talking about tree equity?

What the hell are we doing? That is the question here.

I love trees. I love live oak trees. I do everything I can to preserve and protect the environment in which I live because--this is a crazy idea--I live there. I actually like to fish, and I like to live in clean air and clean water. I like to have an environment that is great to be in for my kids and my family.

We had a Clean Water Act and a Clean Air Act in Texas before the Environmental Protection Agency was even created here in this town.

The fact of the matter is we can do what we need to do to protect our communities without this place spending money we don't have to interfere with this. Yes, there are interstate issues we must deal with, and we can deal with those things. Nevertheless, the fact is we can do these things.

This amendment that I am offering prohibits any of the funding in the Interior-Environment appropriations bill from being used to carry out President Biden's executive orders on climate change.

These executive orders direct the EPA to wage its regulatory war on the United States energy production and the internal combustion engine. The fact of the matter is there are ambitious efforts to convert our entire fleet of vehicles to have two-thirds of new vehicles be electric vehicles by 2032.

Now, that might sound good in a little focus group in some Ivy League cabal in Boston, but the idea of what this is going to actually do to hardworking Americans is something we ought to actually flush out for the American public when the average EV is $16,000 more than a vehicle with an internal combustion engine.

Maybe we should talk about the racial justice issues of cobalt miners around the world who are being exploited in the Congo so that we can empower China by buying all of their batteries rather than producing American oil and gas.

If people think that all of this stuff is an accident of what we are seeing unfold in the Middle East and what we are seeing unfold in Ukraine while our prices are going up and while our national security strength is going down because we are pursuing this radical agenda, these things are all connected.

So, yes, we should not be funding these radical executive orders that are destroying the American way of life and making it virtually impossible for people to figure out how to live their lives while we pursue unicorn energy theories that we are going to be able to somehow magically produce power without the use of reliable power.

Texas has tons of wind and solar. That is great, but we also have a grid that is decreasingly reliable directly as a consequence of Federal regulatory impact on our ability to manage our grid. That is wrong, we shouldn't do it, and we shouldn't be funding a continuation of it.

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

Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that, yes, this bill returns the funding to the ever-efficient model of effectiveness of the 2018 Federal Government.

Yes, it does back up the funding levels. Frankly, we ought to be doing it for more of our agencies, and we are trying to take those steps forward. I will say that unapologetically because the American people are sick and tired of the Federal Government spending money we don't have to fund agencies that are directly at war with their way of life. That is the truth.

That is why gasoline is $1 more than it was when Biden took office, despite the fact that the President has completely dumped our Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to try to preserve political benefits for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is just the simple truth, and everybody knows it.

Yet, we run around here ignoring the reality of what that means for the American people who are trying to get by every single day while the Federal Government is directly at odds with their ability to prosper, earn a living, pay their bills, pay for their energy, pay for their schools, buy cars, and do what they need to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3774) to impose additional sanctions with respect to the importation or facilitation of the importation of petroleum products from Iran, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here today as we gather to pass the Stop Harboring Iranian Petroleum Act, or the SHIP Act, which I introduced earlier this year with my colleague from Florida, Congressman Jared Moskowitz.

In the wake of the appalling terrorist attacks against Israel on October 7, it is clear that we must work to confront Iran and its proxies in the region with a strong sanctions regime. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and, unfortunately, has the coffers to back this up. Iran spends its money on terror, on developing nuclear capabilities, on taking hostages to use for bargaining purposes, and on funding the criminal IRGC.

We must cut off Iran's funding and stop these illicit activities at their source, and that is where Iranian oil comes in.

Iran currently engages in a massive global oil trade, exporting its blood-stained petroleum in exchange for money and influence abroad. In the past year alone, Iran has made tens of billions off of their illicit oil trade, and this August, China imported a staggering 1.5 million barrels per day.

China is the largest importer of Iranian oil and, in doing so, has become complicit in the nefarious acts carried out with that funding. While the U.S. already sanctions Iranian petroleum, it is absolutely critical that we expand our sanctions regime to not only target Iran but Iran's enablers that are complicit in the nefarious acts committed with that money.

The SHIP Act specifically expands these sanctions to cover foreign ports and refineries that process Iranian oil. Individuals and entities that knowingly accept shipments of Iranian oil, refine Iranian oil, transport or offload Iranian oil, or otherwise transact with Iranian oil should be held accountable for their actions, for their willingness to pay for Iranian-backed terrorism.

The SHIP Act has been bipartisan from the start and continues to show a united front between Republicans and Democrats to limit Iran's global influence and protect those the Iranian regime seeks to harm, such as our Jewish and Israeli friends.

The SHIP Act sends a message to those who trade in Iranian oil that they will have the United States to deal with if they continue to do so. They can't pretend they don't know where the money is going. They can't pretend to separate Iranian oil from the very terrorism it supports. Now, we are putting it in writing that they are going to be held accountable if they keep enabling Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3774, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, October 26, 2023.

Hon. Michael McCaul,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McCaul: I write regarding H.R. 3774, the Stop

Harboring Iranian Petroleum Act. Provisions of this bill fall

within the Judiciary Committee's Rule X jurisdiction, and I

appreciate that you consulted with us on those provisions.

The Judiciary Committee agrees that it shall be discharged

from further consideration of the bill so that it may proceed

expeditiously to the House floor.

The Committee takes this action with the understanding that

forgoing further consideration of this measure does not in

any way alter the Committee's jurisdiction or waive any

future jurisdictional claim over these provisions or their

subject matter. We also reserve the right to seek appointment

of an appropriate number of conferees in the event of a

conference with the Senate involving this measure or similar

legislation.

I ask that you please include this letter in your

committee's report to accompany this legislation or insert

this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration

of H.R. 3774 on the House floor. I appreciate the cooperative

manner in which our committees have worked on this matter,

and I look forward to working collaboratively in the future

on matters of shared jurisdiction. Thank you for your

attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jim Jordan,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced this bill earlier this year with Congressman Jared Moskowitz of Florida. It has over 230 bipartisan cosponsors because Congress recognizes the need to sanction Iranian petroleum even further.

Since President Biden took office, relaxed enforcement of oil sanctions has contributed to increased Iranian oil revenues worth approximately $25.9 billion.

In 2019, Iran's oil exports fell below 500,000 barrels per day as a result of the prior administration's oil sanctions pressure.

As of September 2023, Iranian oil exports had increased to nearly 1.5 million barrels per day. Most of these increased sales have gone to Chinese buyers.

Exports are up 59 percent since January of 2021. The administration's refusal to list entities enabling the trade for secondary sanctions--in other words, imposing sanctions on the buyers--has contributed to this.

I wish we didn't need to do this, but we have to. HSI and OFAC should be enforcing these sanctions.

On October 11, 2023, NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications, John Kirby, responded to a question about the weak enforcement of sanctions on Iranian oil by stating, quote, ``The President has been concerned about making sure we have a viable global market for oil, working hard to keep the prices of gasoline down here in the United States. Part of that is making sure you remove some of the volatility in that global supply and demand.''

Are you kidding me? First of all, the United States doesn't get Iranian petroleum. Our refineries aren't able to process it, and we already have sanctions in place against it. This administration has prohibited U.S. oil and gas development more strenuously than it has Iranian. It is absurd.

Macquarie, a leading financial services advisory firm, recently advised its clients that: ``In our assessment, the Biden administration's policy approach has been to limit oil supply disruptions, regardless of the situation. Given that policy objectives did not target Russian oil flows even at the height of the Russian- Ukraine conflict, we do not expect Iranian oil exports to be constrained either.''

Now, there are Members of this body that are going to oppose this legislation because it is too strenuous, doesn't give enough wiggle room to the administration. There is a reason we are not giving wiggle room to the administration. It is because they have been incapable of enforcing the sanctions against Iran and Iranian petroleum, which has been used as the funding source for the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Lest anyone think otherwise, the attacks by Hamas, by Hezbollah over the course of time have been funded by Iran. We must be stringent in enforcing these sanctions. It is critically important.

When you look at what is happening in the world and the unholy alliance that has been brought about by Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia to undermine and destabilize the free world,

to undermine the United States and our allies, we must enforce these sanctions, which is why it is critically important that we pass H.R. 3774 so that we can enact sanctions on the buyer.

China has been the largest buyer of Iranian petroleum. Their refineries are built to refine that oil. Our allies around the world must recognize and understand the threats that are emanating from this unholy alliance.

I urge all of my colleagues in both parties to support this bipartisan, commonsense legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that prohibits any funds from being used to carry out the Biden administration's NEPA Phase 1 rule.

It is clear we have bipartisan consensus--our permitting system is broken. Our permitting system is holding up projects in every district, whether it is Republican or Democrat, and NEPA deserves a lot of this blame.

When NEPA was first passed in 1969, it was a five-page bill. Over the last 50 years, it has grown out of control thanks to executive actions and activist courts. Today, NEPA is an albatross, blocking everything from highway infrastructure projects that connect communities and enable commerce to energy projects that are necessary for securing our energy independence.

In 2020, the Trump administration enacted the first real NEPA reforms in a generation. It helped bring NEPA back to its original intent. Importantly, the Trump administration's reforms removed the requirement to consider ``cumulative impacts,'' that go far beyond a proposed project. This prevented opponents of important projects from abusing the NEPA process and pointing to outrageous, distant, so-called cumulative impacts a project could hypothetically pose.

The reforms also forced Federal agencies to build consistency in permitting reviews and ensured all Federal agencies follow the same standards and procedures. These reforms began to point us back in the right direction. The Biden administration's NEPA Phase 1 rule reversed the Trump-era reforms. It reinstated the cumulative impact requirements. It gave free rein back to Federal agencies to put up roadblocks for projects they didn't want.

The Phase 1 rule is just another part of the Biden administration's anywhere but America, any worker but American agenda.

Mr. Chair, the Biden administration's NEPA Phase 1 rule is a step in the wrong direction. It is important that we adopt my amendment and return some sanity to our broken permitting system.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't understand this.

This administration just last month removed NEPA for the Floyd Bennett Field to host migrants. The Biden administration completely took NEPA off the table for their agenda because of the open border. By the way, the IRA, the IIJA, and the CHIPS Act are not going to happen without permitting reforms and NEPA changes. Come hell or high water, it is not going to happen without the changes. I think both sides of the aisle understand that and agree with that.

We have the highest standard of living in the world because of our process. This administration continues to put up roadblocks for energy transmission, distribution, generation, mining projects, nuclear projects, road construction projects, dams, and forest management. Everything that the American people want to do in a reasonable fashion is held up in part because of NEPA. This is a very good amendment, and I urge adoption.

Mr. Chair, in closing, we can agree that our permitting process is broken. In the debt ceiling, we got a couple of permitting concerns addressed that were generational, hadn't been done in 40 years. We want to be able to make sure that the American worker, the American manufacturer, American technology, our natural resources in our country can be used responsibly.

Why are we putting agreements together with the Congo to mine our minerals that we have, for instance, in northern Minnesota, the biggest copper-nickel find in the world. Why are we doing that?

Why is this administration stopping the American worker, stopping the creativity that we have, stopping not only our energy independence but our national security by going to our adversaries and asking them for our critical minerals or asking them for their energy? We can do better.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that prohibits any funds from being used to finalize or otherwise carry out the Biden administration's proposed NEPA Phase 2 rule.

Rather than working to fix our broken permitting system and working to address the incredible challenges and barriers NEPA poses, the Biden administration's proposed rule makes our already broken system even worse. This proposed rule expands the broken NEPA framework, adds additional requirements, and creates new tools for opponents to shut down good projects.

The NEPA Phase 2 rule would require Federal agencies not only to consider climate change but also add a new requirement to consider environmental justice during the NEPA review process, including environmental tree justice and tree equity. These new requirements are just another way that opponents of highway infrastructure projects, water infrastructure projects, critical mineral mining projects, renewable energy projects, transmission projects, oil and gas development projects get to a ``no.'' This administration does not want to do it here in the United States of America.

Additionally, the NEPA Phase 2 rule violates the reforms Congress has put forth to address our permitting woes. These reforms were part of the bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act that we passed earlier this year.

Trust me, the permitting provisions in the debt ceiling agreement did not solve all of our permitting problems, but they were an important step in the right direction. For example, it included strict page limits and review deadlines for an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Does the NEPA Phase 2 rule implement these reforms? Absolutely not.

This administration is not following the laws that Congress put forward. In fact, when CEQ chair Brenda Mallory, the Biden administration official tasked with fixing NEPA and our broken permitting system, testified before the Natural Resources Committee in June, she claimed the administration didn't need to change a thing.

She told Congress this administration would just follow and do business as usual.

She falsely claimed that this administration was already doing everything the debt ceiling agreement instructed it to do, and that is absolutely not true.

The NEPA Phase 2 rule is a blatant show of disregard for congressional intent and the law that this body passed and President Biden signed into law.

The NEPA Phase 2 rule is completely misguided. It is a step in the wrong direction, and it is important we vote today to prevent the administration from moving to finalize the rule.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, what this amendment does is that it allows American energy, American prosperity, American technology, and American workers to provide energy and critical minerals, transmission projects, highway and bridge projects, dams and rivers.

This allows us to do it here. This allows our communities to have a voice in what happens, not Federal three-letter agency bureaucrats telling the American people what they need and what is best in their communities because our local elected officials know better than Washington, D.C., and the bureaucrats.

These three-letter agencies are out of control. They are unelected. They are not accountable to anybody, and this administration is not following the laws that this body passed.

For years and years, administrations haven't followed what Congress and the Senate have put forward. It is about time we do that, and it can start today.

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