Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I rise to offer my amendment No. 101 to H.R. 4821, the Interior-Environment appropriations bill for 2024. My amendment reduces the salary of Matthew Tejada, the deputy assistant administrator for environmental justice at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to $1.
As the deputy assistant administrator, he often propagates divisive rhetoric and pushes the Biden administration's disastrous environmental justice initiatives onto American communities.
While in his position, Matthew Tejada has made divisive and inflammatory remarks, attributing the disinvestment in some areas, like East St. Louis, to racism and referred to this as the genocide of communities. This sort of rhetoric is a tool used by the radical left to create a greater divide across the Nation.
Matthew Tejada has even said that he wants to use millions of Federal tax dollars to fix environmental racism. As a conservative, I support protecting the environment. One of my favorite Presidents--as a matter of fact, my favorite President--Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican and one of the greatest champions of environmental conservation.
However, I do not support taking a benign policy topic and twisting it into a controversial issue used by the government to further its own political agenda.
This year the EPA received $108 million to go toward funding environmental justice programs and projects, such as the Biden administration's Executive Order 13985, which instructs the EPA to enact an equity action plan.
I am strongly opposed to wasting American taxpayer dollars on issues that will further divide the country. Investing in our communities is important. However, incorporating race into an unrelated issue is simply virtue signaling, which is unhelpful and divisive.
The Biden administration should focus on unifying the country rather than dividing us so that we can combat the real issues our country is facing, like the emergency at the southern border, rising inflation, and the multiple crises happening overseas.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I actually appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. As a former student body president at Morehouse School of Medicine, a minority university, I appreciate the diversity that our country represents. The problem I have is that when we are trying to save the environment, which I have no problem with--I have already stated, my dad was a forest ranger. I have already stated that Teddy Roosevelt was my favorite President--I want to protect the environment. I just don't want to make it an issue about race. I believe we should protect all people, regardless of their skin color. I believe in equal opportunities. I believe that if it is the right thing to do, we do it regardless of what race, what religion, what gender. No matter what the people are, they are Americans, and they deserve the very best from their government. The fact is, we are literally using the government to call the government racist. The very people who are put in charge by President Biden are calling people who are put in charge by the same governmental people racist. It is an inconsistency of thought, and it is divisive.
Therefore, I humbly ask my colleagues to support my amendment to hold Federal bureaucrats accountable, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I rise to offer my amendment No. 102 to H.R. 4821, the Interior-Environment appropriations bill for 2024.
My amendment would prohibit funds from this act from implementing President Biden's burdensome and irresponsible Executive Order Nos. 14037, 14057, and 14096.
Executive Order Nos. 14037 and 14057 are just more examples of the Biden administration's overreach and out-of-touch energy regulations.
The idea that the American people want the consequences of 100 percent of their electricity being carbon pollution-free by 2030, 100 percent of the government vehicles to have zero emissions by 2035, and 50 percent of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States to be electric by 2030 shows just how ignorant this current administration is to the challenges of everyday Americans who are facing these problems.
Everyone needs to pay attention. EV popularity is waning, and it is expensive. Every day, Americans are worried about the skyrocketing costs of groceries and gas prices or whether their next paycheck will cover all their bills, including their electricity bills.
The last thing they are thinking about trying to afford is an electric vehicle that meets the Biden administration's strict standards and, on average, costs $17,000 more than a gas-powered vehicle.
By the way, for a guy who owns a Tesla and who just had to replace a battery, that is another $17,000 on top of that. Your battery will go bad. Anybody who has a cell phone understands that.
These executive orders will hurt low-income Americans most of all. The Biden administration claims to protect those people.
As we look at Executive Order No. 14096, we see a pattern as the Biden administration chooses to focus on programs that divide the American people rather than unite us.
Madam Chair, instead of simply promoting conservation efforts, which most Americans agree are important, this administration continues to use divisive rhetoric behind environmental justice, which does not benefit the poor.
Examples of this divisive rhetoric in the executive order include ``remnants of discrimination continue to persist today''--we are talking about EV vehicles--or that ``communities with environmental justice concerns face entrenched disparities.'' I will tell you that the disparities will be from those who cannot afford these very vehicles that are required.
Our country needs unifying language and leadership. The Biden administration fails that test.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment No. 102 to ensure that American taxpayer dollars are not being spent on frivolous and polarizing initiatives.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague pointing out the equity of environment and her concerns for the people. I know myself when I grew up having to supply my own insurance, supply my own gas, supply my own car, which I bought for $1,295 for a 1971 Datsun 510 with 141,000 miles on it, I couldn't afford anything other than that. I couldn't afford any better insurance. My mom didn't have an insurance policy. Can you imagine a 16-year-old nowadays having their own insurance policy not on their parents' plan?
I was in survival mode, which a lot of these people that she is talking about in these communities are in. That is all they can afford--a used gas vehicle to get to their job, to be independent, to live a dignified life where they can sustain themselves, not because they were told by the government, ``You will do this because I am protecting you,'' but they had a choice. They had a choice because we trust people more than we trust government.
Isn't that what this whole argument is about? Do we trust the government to know what is better for our family and our choices, whether it be what we drive, where we work, or what our emissions are? Do we trust the American people no matter what the color of their skin is, or do we trust the American Government to be the moral standard of who we are and what we represent?
Who do you trust? What is equity? Is equity when the government decides everybody will be equal, or when a person had the choice, based on their God- given right to self-determine, regardless of the color of their skin, regardless of their gender, regardless of their religion, that they have the freedom of choice to decide their fate based on their own challenges?
That is what this argument is about. Do we self-determine, or do we let the American Government become our moral standard of what is right and wrong, of what is good for me?
I choose the individual over the government. I believe that is the foundation of our government. I believe that is the foundation of our Constitution. I believe that that is the unalienable right that God gave us.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source