[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 119 (Thursday, July 10, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4315-S4318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WELCH:
[[Page S4316]]
S. 2247. A bill to enhance local capacity and expand local control
over the disaster response, recovery, and preparedness process, to
guarantee stable Federal funding streams for disaster-impacted
communities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, exactly 2 years ago today, Vermont was
struck with devastating floods. Those floods occurred not only a year
ago today, but 2 years ago today. We had back-to-back floods in 2023
and 2024, doing about a billion dollars' worth of damage.
And by the end of last year, every county in Vermont, all 14
counties, were hit by flooding. That billion dollars in damages
affected homes; it affected businesses; it affected farms.
We had 6,000 tons of debris that was removed, 77 State bridges and 63
State roads were closed; 704 miles of rail was closed, and 159 miles of
rail trail was closed.
We are far from alone in Vermont in having suffered enormous damage
from wild weather events. And I see my colleague from Texas, to whom
all of us extend our heartfelt sorrow and condolences at the flooding
in Texas and the loss of lives of those wonderful Texans and those
kids.
This type of wild weather event can hit any one of our States at any
time of its own choosing. And all of our States have been affected at
one time or another.
Now, I want to talk about FEMA. Our experience in Vermont with FEMA
is that it is absolutely essential and actually quite helpful in the
immediate aftermath of the weather event.
FEMA can preposition resources. It has the capacity to surge
resources and personnel, including people with real experience, and can
coordinate with the local response, which is always very intense, from
State resources and also from incredible outpouring of help from
volunteers.
But acknowledging the importance of FEMA in the immediate aftermath
of a wild weather event in any of our States cannot disregard the fact
that we need to reform FEMA. We need significant reform in FEMA.
In the aftermath of the floods of 2023 and 2024, I visited all of our
communities that were affected, and I followed up after that to talk to
our local officials, our local volunteers, our local regional planning
commissions: What worked and what didn't in the long-term response?
And what I heard from officials--regardless of what their political
orientation was but local officials who had a real sense of urgency
about getting the community back on its feet--was that FEMA was too
slow; it was too bureaucratic; it was conflicting in the advice and
information that it gave. And the ability to respond quickly and timely
was really inhibited because of the centralization of the decision-
making authority in FEMA in Washington or in one of the regional
locations where FEMA has administrative structures. For Vermont that,
ironically, is Puerto Rico, which is not only not close to Vermont but
doesn't have anything close to the weather in Vermont.
So the aftermath of repairing, getting the community back on its
feet--that is where FEMA has failed us. It is because of the
centralization, in my view--actually, less important than my view--in
the view of the local officials who have ongoing responsibility to get
the community back on its feet. They just couldn't get answers.
Let me just give some examples. When there is a culvert out, there is
a road out, there is a bridge down, the people whose bridge is
affected, the people who are threatened if we have a culvert replaced
that is too small for what now we know will be the required carrying
capacity of a culvert, the best people to make that are right there in
that community. They have a sense of urgency. They have a commitment to
the well-being of the people they represent in that community. They
have the pressure of local community people watching to see if they are
making progress on that recovery.
But what has happened with FEMA, where everything is centralized, is
you don't get an answer. Can we replace an 18-inch culvert with a 36-
inch culvert? Can we do the bridge over Hartland Road? Or can we make a
change because the bridge over Route 5 is more important to get fixed
and that is the priority?
One of the problems that our communities had is that the program
managers--those are the people assigned by FEMA to serve communities as
the bridge between the local community and FEMA--they are changed
constantly. So we have had in some of our small towns--and I am talking
towns with a population of like 300--they have one program manager
after another and over the course of a year and a half might have seven
or eight program managers. When that program manager is doing good work
and asking questions and they are getting answers from the town clerk,
the new program manager comes in, and it is as though nothing ever
happened, and they have to start all over again. So it creates an
enormous amount of frustration.
We have a situation with the town of Stannard where the town clerk--
this is the town of 300--the town had to make a decision about repaving
a road. It is a gravel surface. In order to get repaved more than a
year after the road had been repaired, with the town borrowing money it
really couldn't afford for a project that clearly was ultimately going
to be covered by FEMA, the town clerk was getting questions about, what
is the size of the gravel stones in that roadbed 12 inches down? That
makes no sense. And what happens, of course, is it creates an immense
amount of frustration.
A community that goes through a major weather event, in the shock of
it, in the immediate aftermath, everyone rushes in to help. But if it
is your farm, if it is your business, if it is your home, you have to
live with the effects of a slow-moving, nonresponsive, centralized
bureaucracy rather than get on with life and get an answer. Yes or no?
Can you do this or not?
So as a result of my discussions with the communities that have been
affected in Vermont, today, I have introduced a bill that is called the
Disaster Assistance Improvement and Decentralization, AID, Act. Quite
simply, what this bill does is it recognizes that if you are going to
get as quick a recovery as possible, as efficient a recovery as
possible, as cost-effective a recovery as possible, you actually have
to delegate responsibility and authority to the local community that
has to live with the consequences of the damage that has been done.
There has to be a partnership. There has to be accountability.
But where FEMA's role is going to be better on this is on oversight
to make sure that there is the proper use of taxpayer, FEMA-authorized
money. But it is not going to micromanage local folks to death in the
name of oversight; it is going to empower the local folks to make those
decisions that have to be made right now about getting that community
back on its feet.
Every single one of us is horrified when the people we represent
suffer the result of a wild and catastrophic weather event. The loss of
life is horrifying. The destruction to the well-being of the community
is inconsolable. But we can help by making that long-term recovery
process work better, and the only way it is really going to work better
is by having much more authority in local hands--the decisions that
they can make about the culvert, about the bridge, about the grade of
gravel that goes into the repairs.
So my hope is that we can come together as a Congress to fix FEMA so
that its capacity to help our communities when they have been hurt so
hard through no fault of their own--that they will be able to get the
capacity to make decisions, act, and get their community back on its
feet.
Now, I do oppose this discussion that we are had hearing to some
extent from President Trump and Secretary Noem about abolishing FEMA.
You know, we can abolish FEMA when we can get an Executive order
abolishing and banning wild weather events, but that day is not going
to come. But another storm in one of our communities inevitably will
come.
What I want us to do, for your State and mine, is to have a FEMA that
can be on hand, prepositioned, and help in the immediate aftermath and
then be a partner but where we put the decision making and the capacity
to act and the flexibility that is necessary for the wise recovery of
our communities in the hands of our local officials. I think this will
make a much better recovery process for the folks all of us represent
in the great United States of America.
[[Page S4317]]
______
By Mr. PADILLA:
S. 2260. A bill to provide for the water quality restoration of the
Tijuana River and the New River, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border
Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act of 2025. This bill aims to
reduce pollution along the U.S.-Mexico border and improve water quality
throughout the Tijuana River and New River watersheds. It would
designate the Environmental Protection Agency as the lead Agency to
coordinate all Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies to build and
maintain needed infrastructure projects to address pollution along the
border.
The Tijuana River watershed is in the midst of an environmental
crisis, as stormwater flows from the upper watershed, originating in
Tijuana, Mexico, and carries trash, sediment, and sewage into San Diego
County.
Imperial County, like San Diego County, also faces serious impacts
from the raw sewage, industrial waste, and trash that is carried by the
New River from Mexicali, Mexico, through the city of Calexico before
ultimately draining into the Salton Sea, where local families face
exposure to dangerous pathogens.
Since 2019, more than 100 billion gallons of sewage have flowed
across the U.S.-Mexico border into the Tijuana River Valley and
neighboring communities, forcing long-lasting beach closures, including
the closure of Imperial Beach for more than 1,200 days in a row.
Needless to say, this transboundary pollution crisis has
disproportionately harmed underserved communities along San Diego's
southern border for decades. U.S. military personnel, Border Patrol
agents, and the local environment and economy have also suffered
harmful impacts from waterborne and airborne transboundary sewage.
This bill will build upon the past several years of work I have
undertaken alongside the late Senator Feinstein to bolster the
resources of the Environmental Protection Agency and the International
Boundary and Water Commission to repair, rehabilitate, and expand the
South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, including securing
$300 million in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement and more than $250
million through fiscal year 2025 appropriations legislation.
Establishing a program for the Tijuana and New Rivers is critical for
the EPA to integrate and coordinate water quality restoration and
protection activities by stakeholders across the region and will
facilitate better coordination by Federal, State, Tribal, local,
public, nonprofit, and other relevant stakeholders. California
communities have suffered the impacts of transboundary sewage for too
long, and this legislation will facilitate longawaited solutions to
manage stormwater flows to reduce negative impacts to nearby
communities and the regional economy and restore water quality and
ecosystems throughout these watersheds.
I want to thank my colleagues, especially Senator Adam Schiff,
Senator Cory Booker, and Congressman Juan Vargas, for reintroducing
this bill with me. I hope my colleagues will join me to pass the Border
Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act of 2025 to address this
public health and environmental crisis.
______
By Mr. PADILLA:
S. 2261. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to provide for the
establishment of standards to limit the carbon intensity of the fuel
used by certain vessels, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean
Shipping Act of 2025. This bill aims to reduce harmful emissions from
oceangoing vessels and improve air quality for the nearly 40 percent of
Americans that live within 3 miles of a port.
Globally, maritime shipping is a major source of greenhouse gas
emissions, emitting an estimated 1 billion tons of GHG emissions per
year and roughly 3 percent of total anthropogenic global-warming
carbon-dioxide emissions. According to the International Maritime
Organization, global shipping emissions could more than double between
2018 and 2050.
That is why the United States signed two shipping declarations at
COP26 to call for zero-emission fuels on international commercial
vessels by 2030 and the establishment of zero-emission shipping routes
b the middle of the 2020 decade.
This bill would establish a pathway to eliminate greenhouse gas
emissions from all oceangoing vessels that do business with the United
States. It would protect air quality and public health in near-port
communities, reduce climate pollution from large marine vessels calling
on U.S. ports, and ensure the global maritime sector cuts emissions--
all while giving the EPA the flexibility needed for smooth
implementation.
More than 90 percent of global trade is transported by oceangoing
vessels, which produce an estimated 3 percent of global anthropogenic
emissions. Yet these emissions are unregulated in the United States.
The International Maritime Organization's Intersessional Working
Group on the Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships plans to meet at the
end of the month.
This bill would send a strong signal of our commitment to our
international partners, empower the EPA to set standards to reduce
harmful pollution in accordance with our national and international
climate goals, provide certainty to the global shipping industry, and
catalyze research and development to transition oceangoing vessels that
rely on diesel engines.
This bill enjoys the support of environmentalists and industry
stakeholders alike who recognize the urgent need to reduce emissions
from the shipping sector.
I want to thank my colleagues, especially Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
and Congressman Robert Garcia, for reintroducing this bill with me. I
look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Clean Shipping
Act of 2025 as quickly as possible.
______
By Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Risch,
and Mr. Curtis):
S. 2262. A bill to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 to clarify the nature of public investment for purposes of
certain rulemaking, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2262
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``American Voices in Federal
Lands Act''.
SEC. 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND RULEMAKING.
(a) Definition of Public Involvement.--Section 103(d) of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1702(d)) is amended by striking ``citizens'' and inserting
``citizens of the United States, in accordance with section
310(d), as applicable,''.
(b) Public Involvement Relating to Certain Rules and
Regulations.--Section 310 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1740) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 310. RULES AND REGULATIONS.
``(a) Authorization.--
``(1) Secretary.--Subject to subsection (d), the Secretary,
with respect to public lands, shall promulgate rules and
regulations to carry out the purposes of--
``(A) this Act; and
``(B) other laws applicable to public lands.
``(2) Secretary of agriculture.--The Secretary of
Agriculture, with respect to land in the National Forest
System, shall promulgate rules and regulations to carry out
the purposes of this Act.
``(b) Requirement.--The promulgation of rules and
regulations pursuant to this section shall be in accordance
with chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, without regard
to section 553(a)(2) of that title.
``(c) Absence of Regulation.--Before the promulgation of a
rule or regulation pursuant to this section with respect to
public lands or land in the National Forest System, the
applicable land shall be administered under existing rules
and regulations concerning the land, to the maximum extent
practicable.
``(d) Public Involvement Relating to Bureau Land.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to
public lands managed by the Bureau, the Secretary--
``(1) in promulgating any applicable regulations pursuant
to this or any other Act, may take into consideration only
public comments received from citizens of the United States;
and
[[Page S4318]]
``(2) in any public involvement under this Act or any other
provision of law (including regulations), shall establish and
implement a process commonly known as `Completely Automated
Public Test to tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA)' to
deter attempts at public involvement via artificial
intelligence.''.
____________________