Jared Huffman

Mr. HUFFMAN

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

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of my constituent and the Rock and Roll Hall of Famer, Bob Weir. Bob was more than a musical icon. He was a neighbor, a friend, and a beloved part of our North Bay community. For decades, Bob made his home in Marin. He raised his family there, opened his doors to other artists, and helped build the vibrant local music vibe that so many of us cherish. He played intimate shows at Mill Valley's Sweetwater and took the stage at the Mountain Theater atop Mount Tamalpais. Bob's music, his generosity, and unmistakable creative spirit helped define the identity of the North Coast. His legacy will endure every time a kid picks up a guitar, every time the lights come up at the Sweetwater, and every time music echoes across Mount Tam. We are grateful that he made our community part of his life. We send our love to his family, friends, and all my fellow Dead Heads across the world. Mr. Speaker, let the record reflect, I delivered these remarks barefoot in honor of Bobby Weir. I think he would appreciate that.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of more than 45 years of extraordinary public transportation service by Nancy Whelan. A lifelong public servant, Nancy has dedicated her career to innovating transportation infrastructure. Before landing in Marin, she served in roles with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the San Francisco Municipal Railway as well as provided technical and managerial services to agencies throughout the Bay Area, including Marin, as the founder of Nancy Whelan Consulting. She was unanimously appointed to the position of General Manager for Marin Transit by the Board of Supervisors in 2014. Strategic and steadfast, Nancy skillfully navigated Marin Transit through a challenging 11 years, supporting community members through the pandemic and pushing the agency towards a greener future. Under Nancy's leadership, Marin Transit is well on its way to meeting its goal to transition to zero emission by 2040, with the introduction of battery-electric buses and its recent property acquisition in San Rafael for fleet maintenance and operations. Nancy always prioritized accessibility for all Marin residents, including expanding mobility services for people with disabilities and older adults through the Marin Access Mobility Management Center. Her many notable achievements include increasing ridership by 10 percent from pre-pandemic levels, securing and improving the Rush Landing Bus Operations Hub in Novato, and developing the Marin Access Operations Facility in San Rafael. Nancy is known for her critical thinking and professional style, developing strong partnerships with community stakeholders and applying informed decision making. She has been a terrific mentor to the next generation of transit professionals and other local women leaders. A tireless champion for affordable, inclusive transit, her work has influenced strategic planning and projects beyond Marin County and the Bay Area. For her commitment to sustainable and equitable transit, Nancy was awarded the WTS Lifetime Achievement Award. It was my privilege and honor to work with Nancy. She does not shy away from complicated projects, confidently rising to the occasion and embracing complex challenges. I appreciate her collaborative leadership style and strong work ethic. Mr. Speaker, Nancy Whelan is a visionary transit leader, and her legacy cannot be overstated. I respectfully ask that you join me in expressing my sincere gratitude for her decades of good work and in sending her best wishes on her next endeavors.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 140, a resolution that would threaten America's beloved Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, Boundary Waters draws more visitors than any other wilderness in the country. Millions of Americans have paddled, fished, swum, and found solace among its pristine lakes and forests. It supports a multibillion-dollar outdoor economy, thousands of jobs, and a way of life that has been passed down for generations. It is an area that Presidents, reaching back to Teddy Roosevelt, and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have long recognized in terms of its value, and we have protected it as part of our American heritage. Yet, the Boundary Waters have been under threat for years. Twin Metals, owned by Antofagasta, a Chilean mining company with close ties to China, has been lobbying for years to set up a mine just outside the wilderness area, along the banks of waters that flow north, directly into the wilderness. The type of mining that Twin Metals has proposed has a 100 percent track record of toxic pollution. There has never been a mine of this kind that did not leach toxic pollution. Despite what the other side of the aisle might say, there is no guarantee that the precious minerals that were just talked about produced from this mine would actually stay in the U.S. and benefit the American economy or American national security at all. Antofagasta sends most of its minerals to China, where they are then sold on the global market, likely the same fate for these minerals if this mine is allowed to happen. All of this is why, nearly 3 years ago, Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland protected the lands surrounding the Boundary Waters and its headwaters from mining for 20 years through a public land order, a standard tool and process backed by peer-reviewed science and extensive public engagement. The Congressional Review Act resolution on the floor today would overturn those protections, once again putting our beloved Boundary Waters at risk of toxic pollution from a foreign-owned mine. If that weren't enough to convince my colleagues that this resolution is a terrible idea, I will briefly touch on the abuse of the Congressional Review Act itself that this resolution represents. The Congressional Review Act, or CRA, has been used to overturn rules finalized by administrations of both parties since it was signed into law in 1996. This Congress, the Trump administration and Republicans in both Chambers have been using the CRA to overturn public lands protections that have never been considered rules in the past. In an entirely unprecedented move, they are moving forward, even though the Government Accountability Office hasn't yet ruled on whether they believe this public land order constitutes a rule that would be subject to the CRA. This administration and its allies in Congress have just unilaterally decided that they can do this, despite the fact that the Department of the Interior has never before considered a land withdrawal like this to be a rule. Congress received notice of this withdrawal 3 years ago. If the resolution's sponsor wanted to pursue a CRA, he should have inquired then. If this CRA succeeds, it won't just open the Boundary Waters to pollution but would set a terrible and dangerous precedent for Congress to roll back protections for any of our treasured public lands with little oversight or notice, just because Republicans have decided they would rather pillage them for profit. Some places are just worth protecting, and this pristine, one-of-a- kind place is one of those incredible places. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this backdoor attempt to open our public lands to foreign mining, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to the claim that Secretary Haaland failed to notify Congress as required by law, I am holding the notification that went out 3 years ago to the gentleman from Minnesota, personally, from the Secretary of the Interior. Maybe there is a misunderstanding there, but we have the receipts on that one. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate that the gentleman from Montana is suddenly so forthcoming about all of the analysis that has gone into this particular mining project because that wasn't always the case. When he was Secretary, we asked to see that analysis, and what we got back was page after page of redaction. We got zero information. I appreciate the newfound candor from the gentleman, but I have to question his scientific credentials when he assures us that this will be the first ever copper mine of its kind to have no toxic pollution, even though 100 percent of mines using this particular method have leeched toxic pollution. Somehow, we are told this will be the first one to not do that because of all the extra scrutiny it has received. Well, this series of black pages tells you a lot about the transparency and the scrutiny we have come to expect from the folks across the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Morrison).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, we are well aware that the Twin Metals mine is proposed just outside of the border of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. We have been very clear on that. However, it is very much within the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. In fact, it is right on the edge. It is just a couple of miles upstream on a river that flows right into this area. Let's stop kidding ourselves. To try to say that it is outside the border on this map and, therefore, the Boundary Waters have nothing to worry about when this mine leaks-- because it will, because every mine of this kind, 100 percent in the past, have leaked and have caused toxic pollution--when it happens, that pollution is going straight into America's most popular wilderness. That is a fact. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, now we hear about a gold mine on the Canadian side of the Boundary Waters watershed that has been producing minerals without incident. I am beginning to worry that my colleagues don't understand basic hydrology and how water flows and moves. To begin rebuttal, I include in the Record two articles on New Gold: https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/ industry-news/mining/new-gold-fined- for-2016-discharge-772366 https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/new-gold-inc-fined-100000- after-sediment-spill-from-dam-988742 Mr. Speaker, the mine was fined nearly $200,000 for discharging 19 million liters of pollution into the watershed. New Gold was fined again in 2018 after a sediment spill from a dam. The only reason that that wasn't catastrophic for the Boundary Waters is because that mine is on the north side of the wilderness, where the water flows away from the protected areas. That is how it works: Water in a watershed flows downhill in whatever direction that watershed takes it. I don't know why that basic principle seems so hard to understand, but apparently we have some hydrology problems across the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have been told time and again by our friends across the aisle that we have nothing to worry about here because this mine, even though it is proposed right next to the Boundary Waters wilderness on a river that flows directly into the wilderness with a type of mining that has a 100 percent track record of leaching toxic pollution, that, in spite of all that, we have all these wonderful environmental standards that will protect America's most popular wilderness. That is pretty cold comfort, Mr. Speaker, coming from lawmakers who are working overtime to gut every single one of those bedrock environmental protections. It may not be in this particular bill, but do I have to remind my colleagues that, just a few weeks ago, we were here on the floor debating their legislation to gut the National Environmental Policy Act. In our markup the same week, Republicans led the charge to eviscerate the Endangered Species Act. Separately, in other committees, they are going after the Clean Water Act. Every one of these safeguards that we are told will be a backstop against anything going wrong in the Boundary Waters is under unprecedented attack from the same folks who are pushing this legislation right now. Don't be fooled that everything will be fine because of our environmental laws and standards. Those are under an unprecedented attack. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this resolution for both the extreme danger that it poses to the Boundary Waters and the outrageous abuse of the Congressional Review Act that it represents. As you have heard today, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is an American treasure with a strong, nonpartisan history of protection, dating back to 1909 through treaties with Canada and to 1964 with the Wilderness Act, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support back when we had great conservation champions in both parties. Americans from across the country who have experienced the serenity of this wilderness know exactly what is at stake. Passing this resolution would pave the way for toxic mining that would, without a doubt, cause permanent and irreparable harm, mining that wouldn't even benefit the U.S. economy. This move is deeply unpopular in Minnesota and does not put American critical mineral security first. This material will go to China. It would also have far-reaching consequences for the future of public lands management, making beloved, protected lands across the country vulnerable to exploitation with very little oversight. At the end of the day, some places really are worth protecting, and this is one of those places. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 140, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 1962, Congress authorized a 130-mile pipeline, known as the Arkansas Valley Conduit, to deliver clean, reliable water to communities in southeastern Colorado. More than 60 years later, the project remains uncompleted, while communities in the region continue to face unreliable water supplies and serious water quality challenges. The drinking water sources they rely on are often contaminated with unsafe levels of radium, uranium, and other pollutants. Treating these contaminants places a significant burden on rural communities and forces many families to rely on bottled water or expensive filtration systems to meet basic needs that we all take for granted. The Arkansas Valley Conduit was designed to address these challenges, but the project is still not completed largely because the communities that it will serve do not have the financial capacity to meet the traditional repayment obligations. They need our help. For over a decade, the Colorado delegation has worked to advance this project so that families in southeastern Colorado can finally have access to clean, safe drinking water. Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper helped secure $500 million through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for this project that was a major step toward completion. Last year, this body worked in a bipartisan manner to pass H.R. 131. Now, as introduced, Representative Boebert's bill did raise some concerns about removing interest payments and extending the repayment period, but our colleagues in the Senate worked to address these shared concerns, and we in the Natural Resources Committee came together to build on that work to ensure that this legislation addresses the real water reliability challenges facing the people of southeastern Colorado while remaining consistent with core reclamation law principles. Together, Congress sent the President a carefully negotiated and narrowly tailored bipartisan bill to support the completion of this project. The administration has no problem subsidizing water for certain stakeholders, including large-scale agricultural projects, yet when it comes to a tailored bill to ensure access to safe drinking water for rural communities, unfortunately, the President has taken a different path. Now, we are going to talk about the merits of this bill today, I am sure, but we all know that this veto has nothing to do with fiscal policy, nothing to do with the merits. There has been extensive reporting that raises broader concerns about the administration's posture toward the State of Colorado and even toward the sponsor of this bill. We know what this veto was about, and the message that that sends to Colorado and communities awaiting the completion of the Arkansas Valley Conduit is deeply troubling. Meanwhile, and the good news, is that this Congress has kept working to find a solution, and the legislation before us today is reasonably negotiated and bipartisan. It is going to help communities who have waited too long to finally have clean water. I thank my colleagues for their commitment to working with us to reach the language before us today. I am deeply disappointed that the President chose to veto a bill that would help communities gain access to clean drinking water. The communities of southeastern Colorado deserve better, and today we have a bipartisan opportunity to do that for them. I express my support and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on overriding the President's veto, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really, in this moment, could care less about Ms. Boebert's politics or Mr. Hurd's politics. What I see before us is a piece of legislation that does an awful lot of good for people, a bill that was carefully negotiated, is bipartisan, and is common sense. It is a water infrastructure bill, and every Member of this House looked past their political differences and did the right thing when we passed this unanimously out of the House of Representatives. That was Congress just doing its job. If a noncontroversial, bipartisan, good bill like this can be taken hostage and become a weapon for settling political scores, well, it may not be in your State, it may not be in your district, but that could happen and will happen to any of us. Mr. Speaker, this may seem like a little water infrastructure bill, but this is a bigger moment than that. This is a bit of a Spartacus moment for the Members of this body because any of us could face this, and we are about to find out. I hope the people of this country are watching. I know history is actually going to be watching what happens here because if Congress is able to override this veto, it is a statement that even in a moment of extreme polarization, dysfunction, and conflict, we were able to get some work done. That would be Congress doing its job. If we fail to override this veto, that would say something much, much more troubling. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Natural Resources Committee is entrusted with working on behalf of Indian Country. While we don't always agree on everything, we have a long history of bipartisan work and a shared commitment to advancing legislation that benefits Tribal communities. H.R. 504 is one clear example of this. It addresses longstanding challenges caused by past Federal policies, and it is an opportunity--I would argue, an obligation--to support the Miccosukee Tribe in their efforts to protect their homelands. President Trump has undermined that work, vetoing this bill based on unrelated policy disputes and a fundamental misunderstanding of Tribal sovereignty. H.R. 504 would expand the Miccosukee Reserved Area to include Osceola Camp, which would strengthen the Tribe's ability to self-govern and, importantly, to address serious flooding concerns facing the village. This bipartisan bill is narrow, targeted, and respects Tribal sovereignty. After reviewing the President's statement regarding his veto, it is very clear that this decision was not limited to the merits of the bill or to any particular policy. Instead, his statement criticizes the Tribe for actions taken to protect the Everglades, their homelands, from environmental risks. It even takes issue with the Tribe's opposition to his administration's unpopular immigration policies. Moreover, the statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Tribal Nations and the obligations that the United States has to those sovereign governments. Let me be clear: Tribes are not special interests. They are not seeking special treatment. They are sovereign nations with legal and moral responsibilities to protect the well-being of their citizens, their homelands, and the United States has a government-to-government responsibility to work with them. Unrelated policy disagreements should never be used to undermine that relationship. The Miccosukee Tribe has worked for generations to protect their homelands within the Everglades. H.R. 504 would ensure that a historic Tribal village is protected, while allowing for critical restoration efforts to move forward without displacing the community. It is pretty straightforward. It is noncontroversial. It was broadly universally bipartisan. It never should have been vetoed. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 504. Vote ``yes'' on overriding this veto. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, to state the obvious, this bill has nothing to do with immigration. It is a very important bill, though, about Tribal sovereignty. It is a well-crafted bill. It is bipartisan. It is noncontroversial. Someone in the White House has decided to use it as a hostage to play politics, very petty and personal politics because of score settling. They have chosen to do that, but that doesn't mean that all of us have to be used as pawns to advance that nastiness. This veto signal sends a terrible message, and it comes after a year of uncertainty in Indian Country, which included significant funding cuts, workforce reductions, and a withdraw of key executive orders that were designed to support Tribes. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing by the Miccosukee Tribe and pass this veto override. Let's ensure that this Tribe continues to have access to the historic Osceola Camp and their homelands remain protected for future generations. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, there were few people in the Congress that tangled with Doug LaMalfa more than me. There is probably some competition for that honor among House Democrats, but I was certainly right up there. Yet, I can tell you as we honor Doug today, I know plenty of people who disagreed with him, but I don't know anyone that disliked him. When you hear these qualities about his authenticity, his warm sense of humor, just how relatable he was, that is all very, very true. I go back almost 20 years with Doug because we were in the State legislature together. A lot has been said about his sense of humor, which is also very, very true. I want to just share something that I always think of with Doug because it speaks to the type of humor which is really, I think, something that tells you about the man. There are plenty of people who have a great sense of humor at other people's expense. Doug LaMalfa had a very gentle and disarming sense of humor. One of our colleagues together in the State assembly was our former colleague and the current mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass. I will always remember how Doug used to crack her and me up by calling her Bassomatic. That was the nickname. His staffers back here are far too young to remember the ``Saturday Night Live'' skit in which Dan Aykroyd puts a bass in a blender and makes this gross smoothie and drinks it. It was funny, and that is the kind of thing that Doug would pull up spontaneously and crack everyone up. I loved that. I will tell you, Karen Bass loved it too. She liked it so much that she went up to Doug's district when she became speaker of the assembly, and I remember he just not only welcomed her there--this is a person he had very little in common with, a southern California urban African- American member that voted together with him almost never, but Doug gave her the VIP tour of his farm and of the Sacramento Valley and rice country. He got her up in a combine and had her do things that I am sure she will never forget. I think he loved every minute of that. That is how I am going remember Doug. He was a great guy. I am certainly thinking and sending best wishes to his family and everyone who loved him.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is our last day in session before Republicans close up shop and send everyone home for a couple of weeks. The majority could be using this time to do something, such as provide actual solutions to the healthcare cliff that the country is about to go off of, address the affordable cost of all manner of goods and utilities that have been set in motion by their wrongheaded policies, but no. Instead of doing anything to help Americans make ends meet, we are here on the floor giving more gifts to Big Oil, multibillion-dollar foreign mining corporations, and specialty interests like the NRA. I guess merry Christmas to all of them and a big lump of coal for everyone else. To no one's surprise, Republicans have been working all year on handouts to Big Oil that were written for and by the oil and gas industry. The first bill up on our Christmas list is for polluters. It has been at the top of their wish list for as long as I have been in this Congress. It is the SPEED Act, which is being sold to us as permitting reform, and a spoiler alert: It is not permitting reform. The bill takes a sledgehammer to the National Environmental Policy Act, one of our foundational environmental laws. NEPA was enacted in 1970 on a bipartisan basis to require Federal agencies to do something that seems very basic: to understand the consequences of their actions and to listen to the affected American communities before approving major proposed projects. It is often described as telling agencies that they need to look before they leap. Madam Chair, I am not opposed to reforms to make NEPA and other laws work better and to make it more efficient, especially for the build-out of the stuff we need: clean energy and essential infrastructure. However, we can do that while maintaining appropriate environmental protections, respecting Tribal consultation, and protecting community input. The SPEED Act does great damage to all of those things. Instead, it abandons transparency and accountability, while ignoring the single biggest permitting problem facing the energy sector right now: the Trump administration's all-out war against wind and solar, which includes a total refusal to permit these projects. From the beginning, Democrats across Capitol Hill have expressed a willingness to negotiate on permitting reform, including changes to NEPA, but the first thing we needed to see was an end to the crazy, arbitrary war on clean energy that is needlessly driving up energy costs for millions of Americans. I hope you will just take a look at the spaghetti mess behind me because this is what Republicans have done to the permitting process for wind and solar projects. On July 15, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum signed a memo listing 69 individual actions that require his personal sign-off. Of course, this requirement only applies to wind and solar projects, not to fossil fuels. However, I will name just a few of the things that now require Secretary Burgum to pause his global tour promoting fossil fuels all over the world and give personal sign-off. If you need a temporary use permit for anything, if you need a national trail system impact evaluation, or if you need visual impact analysis, the Secretary of the Interior himself has to take a look at what you are proposing and sign off--69 times if you want to actually get a permit for a wind and solar project. This is madness. Since the memo's enactment, there has been only one single solar project all year long that has been approved. It was just yesterday, and it happened only after heavy lobbying from the Republican Governor of Nevada, who told the Department of the Interior that it wasn't just that project, that there are actually 33 gigawatts of solar and storage projects that are in limbo right now because of this logjam that they have created, and that they are going to be key to supporting affordable, reliable energy to meet increased load growth. To be clear, this is just one project that has made it through the gauntlet. It was fully approved, by the way, under the Biden administration, but then the Trump folks came along and put the brakes on that project. That is where we are. That is the context for this conversation, where my friends across the aisle claim to care so much about an efficient permitting process. I think most Republicans would agree, at least privately I think they would agree, that wind and solar are essential parts of the energy mix, despite the President's war against them. That is why, at markup, Chair Westerman did incorporate a few Democratic ideas that at least attempted to provide some permitting certainty for projects of all kinds. Now, those amendments didn't come anywhere close to actually providing certainty for wind and solar projects in the face of the administration's crazy war on clean energy. The amendment would not get clean energy permits moving again, and it did nothing to help projects that the administration had already pulled the plug on. Even that largely cosmetic step was too much for the Freedom Caucus, and so they struck again. They demanded that the Committee on Rules attach language to further stall clean energy permitting and to make it even easier for the Trump administration to continue blocking wind and solar projects in order to bring the SPEED Act to the floor today. That was the condition for our being here, debating this bill on the floor right now. A bad bill got worse, so bad that the American Clean Power Association pulled its support, joining the Solar Energy Industries Association in opposing the bill. For months, we heard from Chair Westerman exhibit A for why Democrats should feel comfortable supporting this bill: The American Clean Power Association supports it. That support has now curdled into opposition. Mr. Chair, do you know who still supports it? The American Petroleum Institute and the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, which put out a statement immediately after the Freedom Caucus made the bill worse to announce their great affection and support for this bill. The bill has lost any claim for advancing tech-neutral energy policy, if it ever had one. Trust me when I say that even if the House passes this bill today, it is going nowhere in the Senate. What a missed opportunity to tackle a serious issue that Democrats were very interested in working on in good faith to find some solutions for. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I need to provide some translation services for those who may not be fluent in Orwellian distortion. When my colleague says that this legislation only deals with NEPA, that it doesn't touch the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, or Endangered Species Act, what that really means is that within the four corners of this particular bill, they are not gutting those other laws. Rest assured, they are working separately to gut those other laws. In fact, just last week, Republicans attacked longstanding Clean Water Act protections, and just yesterday, the Committee on Natural Resources had a markup that advanced their legislation to gut the Endangered Species Act. For those who want to see a complete annihilation of environmental protections across the board, rest assured, our Republican friends are doing that, just not all of it within the four corners of this bill. There is another translation that I think is needed. We heard from my friend from Arkansas that they want to end the administrative ping-pong process. What they really mean by that, if we actually read this bill, is that they want the 69 individual steps that Secretary Burgum has imposed on all solar and wind projects to remain in place. I guess that is not administrative ping-pong, but I think it is an important part of the translation. Then, finally, we heard that this legislation is about restoring NEPA's original intent, to just be a procedure bill. It is important to understand that NEPA does require procedure, but it requires meaningful procedure for a very important purpose: making sure that government actions consider the impacts of what they are doing and, with transparency and accountability, include communities so we can protect the environment, human health, and other values. When you strip all of that out and leave NEPA as a box-checking exercise, which is what this bill is, that is not preserving the original intent of NEPA. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. HUFFMAN

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

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have heard over and over again in this debate that this bill is not about lowering environmental standards. This is another one of those rather remarkable inversions, when you actually look at what the bill does. Entire classes of projects are simply eliminated from environmental review. Entire classes of impacts no longer count in an environmental review under this proposed legislation. Certain types of comments that allow people to take part in the public review process and potentially challenge a project are no longer qualifying for them to be part of the public review and legal challenge process. If that is not lowering environmental standards, I don't know what is. Another aspect of this bill should be considered specifically: allowing broad exemptions for grants, loans, and other financial assistance, which this bill does. It means that large, federally backed projects could avoid triggering a NEPA review, even when those impacts could be very significant. This includes projects like many Federal highways, which were one of the original reasons that NEPA was passed, because they often ran right through disadvantaged communities. Those communities didn't even know about the proposed projects, let alone have the ability to require consideration of environmental impacts. If you just take a look at this image here, this is what happens to transportation projects without NEPA. When we hear that this is not about lowering environmental standards, I think it is important to bring it back to the reality of what this bill would do. This is what this bill would do: no environmental review process at all for many of these projects. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.