mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. chairman , i oppose this amendment not because i oppose environmental justice , but because i do not think this amendment is necessary . 
the amendment does not codify existing powers in the federal government . 
it would change the way that they are currently operating . 
the current environmental justice programs are in no danger of being repealed . 
the subject of the amendment , executive order 12898 , is already in effect and requires each federal agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental affects of its programs , policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations . 
in my opinion , this amendment is a step backward in allowing minority and low-income communities the opportunity for individual choice and economic freedom in creating jobs and encouraging development in these low-income areas that are in such desperate need of revitalization and economic growth . 
more environmental restrictions and quotas , that would result from this amendment , will only continue the plight of these economically disadvantaged communities by discouraging further development . 
epa already has several offices that have responsibility for overseeing and instituting environmental justice programs , including two specific ones , the office of environmental justice and a national advisory committee that gives national focus to environmental justice concerns in all environmental protection programs at the epa . 
so i know it is a well-intentioned amendment , but it is not necessary because we have existing executive orders . 
the agencies are implementing it . 
and i think this would actually do more harm than good . 
mr. chairman , i yield 1 minute to the gentleman from california ( mr. cunningham . ) 