Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, Section 321 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) employs the term ``reasonably foreseeable'' in four instances. The intent of using the term ``reasonably foreseeable'' in subsection (a) of section 321, which amends section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act, is to narrow the scope of NEPA's requirements. NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare ``a detailed statement . . . on the environmental impact'' of any proposed federal project ``significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.'' 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(i). This detailed statement is colloquially known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). At present, NEPA requires that an EIS must include, inter alia, a detailed statement on ``the environmental impact of the proposed agency action'' and ``any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented[.]'' 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(i) and (ii).
Ultimately, in amending NEPA to include the concept of reasonable foreseeability, Congress intends to establish in statute Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763 (1st Cir. 1992). In Sierra Club, the court stated succinctly that ``[n]ot all impacts need be discussed in exhaustive detail. First, only those effects that are `likely' (or `foreseeable' or `reasonably foreseeable') need be discussed . . . and, as in other legal contexts. the terms `likely' and `foreseeable,' as applied to a type of environmental impact, are properly interpreted as meaning that the impact is sufficiently likely to occur that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a decision.'' Sierra Club at 765 (internal citations omitted). Through use of the term ``reasonably foreseeable'' in section 321 of the FRA, Congress intends to narrow NEPA's scope by establishing in statute the ordinary prudence standard with respect to NEPA analysis.
Section 321(a) of the FRA amends 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(i) and (ii) with the intent to narrow the scope of what must be included in an EIS. Clause (i) is amended from ``the environmental impact of the proposed action'' to ``reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action''. The intent of this amendment is to narrow the scope from ``any environmental impact'', which can be broadly construed, to only those ``environmental effects'' that would be a ``reasonably foreseeable'' result ``of the proposed agency action.'' In executing this amendment to NEPA. Congress seeks to clarify that an agency need not evaluate all effects of a proposed action, but rather only those effects that are ``reasonably foreseeable.''
Clause (ii) is amended from ``any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented'' to ``any reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented''. The intent of this amendment is to narrow the scope from ``any adverse environmental effects'', which can be broadly construed, to only those adverse environmental effects that are also ``reasonably foreseeable.'' In each of these instances, it is Congress's intent to enshrine in statute the ordinary prudence standard with respect to the content of an EIS.
Similarly, section 321(b) of the FRA also employs the term ``reasonably foreseeable'' in establishing in statute levels of review under NEPA. By qualifying the ``significant effect'' with the term ``reasonably foreseeable'', Congress again intends to employ the ordinary prudence standard to make clear the circumstances in which an agency must issue an EIS. Specifically, Congress intends to limit preparation of an EIS to only those instances where the significant effect on the quality of the human environment is also ``reasonably foreseeable'' as opposed to merely possible or any or all potential significant effects. The term ``reasonably foreseeable'' is again employed with respect to an ``environmental assessment'' for consistency and to provide clarity in the distinction between circumstances in which an EIS versus an environmental assessment is required.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak on H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
It is important to highlight and discuss how we got here and what is at stake with this critical and momentous measure.
I know I am not alone in the disappointment at what steps have been taken to hold our nation's economy hostage and put American lives at risk.
It is shameful that, while we have a bipartisan agreement here today, we have taken painful compromises to get here.
And although arduous efforts on both sides of the aisle allowed for us to move forward with this agreement, and some critical protections for the American people have been preserved--it must be stated that this agreement is not one that entirely reflects what we in Congress should be united on--namely, our most basic and fundamental truths that hold us together as a democracy.
We are nation that upholds the ability for all to prosper, as well as one that upholds the ability for all Americans to be protected and cared for in our times of greatest need.
It is important to understand that the foundations of a society do not extend only to its political and economic system; they must extend to its social and moral system as well.
Taking all of these in balance there is no other comparable governmental system that has raised the standard of living of millions of people, created vast new wealth and resources, or inspired so many beneficial innovations and technologies.
Governmental structures providing for protections and safety nets for all Americans is what makes us all successful as a nation united.
Creating and preserving such structure is the critical investment in our government, our nation, our security, and our development and growth for current and future generations to benefit from.
Yet, instead of investing in America, many of my Republican colleagues would rather focus on holding our economy hostage to advance unpopular and dangerous priorities.
Holding our nation's debt ceiling as collateral to inflict painful cuts that will impact the lives of millions of Americans and knowing that breaching the debt limit would provoke unprecedented economic damage and instability in the U.S. and around the world is a sad state that we have found ourselves in.
Yes, it is evident that my Republican colleagues will not prioritize the wellbeing, safety, health, and prosperity of the American people when looking at what we have had to give up in this bill.
While much is unknown about the devastating impact this bill will have, we do know that some immediate changes will inevitably cause harm to many American families, children and vulnerable individuals.
That is why I offered several amendments during the Rules Committee that will make additional exemptions and elimination of disqualifications for several additional special populations in which we must protect and continue to support when they are in their most desperate and fragile times of need.
Ensuring that we are not taking critical resources and money for food away from children and families living in poverty is not only the right thing to do, but also the economically smart thing to do.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the nation's most important and effective anti-hunger program.
Any changes in SNAP will have an incredible impact on millions of Americans and Texans.
As of 2020, there were 18.66 million households relying on SNAP and 7.11 million SNAP households with children.
Texas holds the second highest number of households using the SNAP program in 2023 at 1,167,720, making up 11.5 percent of Texas households.
As of April 2023, there were 284,794 SNAP cases and 615,463 eligible individuals in Harris County, my district's biggest county.
This included 92,214 individuals aged less than 5 and 228,519 individuals between the ages of 5 through 17.
My first amendment for H.R. 3746, listed on the Rules Co1nmittee roster as Amendment No. 56, would have added a provision to extend exemption regarding current work requirement exemptions in the Food and Nutrition Act for a parent or person responsible for dependent child up to age 24 in SNAP household.
In Texas, 79 percent of SNAP participants are families with children. That's more than the national rate of 69 percent of SNAP participants across the country being families with children.
Further, the SNAP participation rate in Texas for working poor people is 72 percent--which is also more than the national rate of 41 percent of SNAP participants nationwide being in working families.
We need to understand that parents continue to support children beyond the age of adolescence impacting financial resources for families well into a child's early twenties.
Across the country there 5.134 million, and 528,000 in Texas aged 18 through 24 in poverty as of 2021.
Nearly 1 in 3 parents (31 percent) have made a significant financial sacrifice to help their adult children financially.
Over two-thirds (68 percent) of parents of adult children have made or are currently making a financial sacrifice to help their kids financially.
Parents say they sacrificed retirement savings (43 percent), emergency savings (51 percent), paying down their own debt (49 percent) or reaching a financial milestone (55 percent).
Over 40 percent of American children rely primarily on their mothers' earnings for financial support in crosssectional surveys.
In July 2022, half of adults ages 18 to 29 were living with one or both of their parents.
Significantly higher than the share who were living with their parents in 2010 (44 percent on average that year) or 2000 (38 percent on average).
What this means is that we need to understand that support for families with dependent children under the age of 24 and who are living in poverty need to be protected and extended the grace of an exemption in this bill.
My second amendment for H.R. 3746, listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment No. 59, would have extended the former foster care exemption to all individuals 24 or younger under state custody and aging out of critical support services.
More than 23,000 children will age out of the US foster care system every year.
Every year in Texas, more than 1,200 young adults age out of the foster care system without being adopted.
Less than half of Texas foster care alumni (46.9 percent) were currently employed at least ten hours per week.
Only half of alumni (51.6 percent) reported having a household income that was greater than the poverty line.
By 24 years old, 50 percent of former foster kids had been ``couch surfing'' since leaving care.
One in ten interviewed alumni (11.1 percent) was currently incarcerated; nearly seven in ten males (68.0 percent) had been arrested since leaving care, 55.2 percent had been convicted of a crime, and 62.3 percent had spent at least one night incarcerated.
Over 90 percent of foster youth who move more than four times will end up in juvenile justice.
Many youth in the juvenile and criminal justice system are not deemed to be indigent but have also had contact with the foster care system and have been removed from their homes even if they have not been formerly adjudicated as a foster child.
Far too often children in state custody are taken from their homes for significant periods of times during their adolescence and at a time when they are most vulnerable to recidivating upon their return to their homes due to gaps and lack of resources to help them get jobs, education, mental health care, substance abuse and housing.
It is important that we continue to provide necessary resources for all children and youth aging out of state custody where they have been removed from their homes during critical times of development and growth--and often are left to survive on their own and/or cannot return to their homes upon their release.
We need to do more to support youth aging out of state custody.
Despite no Democratic common-sense amendments being accepted at this posture, we have no choice but to continue to move forward and still try to make a better way for our nation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source