Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am deeply concerned about the majority's lack of urgency to fund the government. The continuing resolution expires in less than 3 weeks, but instead of getting to work negotiating with the Senate on a full-year bill, we are wasting time on bills that violate the terms of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
I strongly oppose the fiscal year 2024 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This harmful bill debilitates America's ability to address the climate crisis and hobbles the agencies within its jurisdiction.
It slashes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by nearly 40 percent. That is nearly $4 billion less than we appropriated in 2023.
It also rescinds more than $7 billion of vital investments provided by the Inflation Reduction Act for the United States to take immediate economy-wide climate action. Climate change has reached a crisis point, and experts agree that we must take bold action to avoid a major, irreversible catastrophe.
In addition to the cut proposed by the State-Foreign Operations bill, the Republicans' Interior bill virtually eliminates the greenhouse gas reduction fund, which was established by the Inflation Reduction Act to mitigate the costs of climate pollution through investment in low-and zero-emission technologies.
The damage inflicted by this bill extends far beyond climate change. The bill wipes out the environmental justice program and cuts $1.4 billion from the environmental and climate justice grants made possible through the Inflation Reduction Act.
It curtails the progress that has been made to ensure that all people are equally protected from our environmental and health hazards. This bill abandons our most vulnerable groups that currently bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental impacts, which includes large swaths of rural communities that I, and many of my colleagues across the aisle, represent.
The bill also slashes funding for enforcement of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which will enable polluters.
The cuts in this bill are so severe that even agencies that usually garner bipartisan support are targeted for damaging reductions. Funding for the National Park Service, for example, will be cut by 13 percent.
This bill also significantly reduces funding for the arts and humanities agencies. The cuts to the Smithsonian Institution and National Gallery of Art are so deep that they will be forced to reduce the number of hours or days each week that the museums are open to the public.
When our constituents bring their families to see our Nation's Capital, I think all Members in this room expect they should have access to these museums, but this bill takes that away.
The bill also fails our Nation's wildland firefighters. It does not provide any of the funding requested by the administration to support wildland firefighters and their families through better compensation, safe housing, and health and well-being assistance. Without this funding, firefighters will lose the compensation increases first provided in the bipartisan infrastructure law.
Sadly, this bill also contains numerous discriminatory riders, as well as an exhaustive list of anti-environment riders that seek to derail any effort to combat climate change, and it undermines clean water and clean air protections.
They give an open invitation to exploitive oil, gas, and mineral leasing by blocking environmental regulations and even overriding judicial review. At the same time, the bill suppresses clean energy production. Clean, renewable energy is critical if we are going to save our planet for future generations.
The majority of Americans support becoming carbon neutral by 2050, and they support prioritizing the development of renewable energy sources and preserving biodiversity for the benefit of future generations. The austere and irresponsible cuts in this bill do not align with their values.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Chair Simpson and Ranking Member DeLauro for their tireless efforts on this committee. As Mr. Simpson mentioned, we don't always agree on everything, but we have a chance to work well together. I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who work tirelessly.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill to protect the world we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee and the former chair of this subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and the distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
We have felt the effects of climate change for years in south Florida, draining millions from State and local government coffers to respond to the cycle of natural disasters.
What is the majority's response in this bill?
A crippling 39 percent cut to the EPA and policy provisions that will severely undercut efforts to curb CO
What does that mean for people watching us at home? More asthma, higher rates of cancer, and more frequent natural disasters, upending American families' lives.
We need to invest in clean energy, not just right now, but yesterday. Besides underfunding clean energy efforts, this bill also neglects the cherished Smithsonian Institution. I was extremely disappointed that this bill bars funding for the new National Museum of the American Latino and the operation of the existing Molina Family Latino Gallery.
The legislation that created this museum enjoyed strong bipartisan support just 3 years. The Latino community is so integral to America's heritage, it baffles me why the majority would block the Smithsonian from highlighting their historic and cultural contributions, especially since Congress established this museum.
We must embrace the beautiful mosaic that makes our Nation so incredible, and that includes investing in public museums to provide a cultural and educational platform.
This bill, by the way, also underfunds the Holocaust Memorial Museum. I respectfully requested the majority to include an additional $2 million over fiscal year 2023 for the museum's education program.
The intentional, genocidal violence inflicted on Israeli civilians and the unconscionable apathy of many nations--and far too many in our own Nation--is a sobering reminder that Israel is surrounded by hostility and danger. Anti-Semitic threats and attacks in the U.S. were already skyrocketing up 37 percent in 2022. Only by fully funding education programs can we truly combat this rise in hate.
Let's take some pride in America. Let's not cloak bigotry and ensure that we can educate people and promote understanding and unity, build up our public spaces, not starve and neglect them. For these reasons and many others, I urge Members to vote ``no.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee and my good friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise to support this en bloc amendment, which includes several noncontroversial amendments that we support.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank the chair of this committee for opposing the amendment.
As far as I am concerned, this amendment is extreme. It will not gain bipartisan support and become law.
The draconian cuts proposed in this bill violate the agreement reached by former Speaker McCarthy and President Biden that were memorialized in statute in Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
We would not be teetering on the brink of government shutdown if my Republican colleagues would hold up their end of the bargain.
As to this amendment, with the West reeling from the historic megadrought, the worst in 1,200 years, why would any of my colleagues want to hamstring the Bureau of Land Management from protecting our public lands for the American public and future generations?
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment completely eliminates the Council on Environmental Quality. This important office is responsible for coordinating the Federal Government's efforts to improve, preserve, and protect Americans' public health and the environment. These are very important tasks.
It also works to ensure that environmental reviews for infrastructure projects and Federal actions are thorough, efficient, and reflect the input of the public and local communities.
This proposed amendment would hobble the office and result in significant delays to infrastructure projects across the country at exactly the wrong time.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the committee chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, once again, this is a terribly misguided amendment to completely defund and eliminate the Council on Environmental Quality. I appreciate the remarks by the chair that, while in different administrations, we may feel differently about the kinds of decisions or the tactic taken, but we understand the importance of this particular agency, and defunding it would be absolutely the wrong move.
I appreciate the gentleman who sponsored this amendment, his desire to fund the national parks, and we have a way to do that. Just go against the cuts that are made in this bill, vote against the Interior Appropriations bill, and we will make sure that, in a future iteration of this bill, we fully fund the national parks. I appreciate his understanding the importance of making sure that funding is available.
As to this amendment, this is a bad amendment.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, let's just remember, we are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change: the drought, the flooding, the severe storms, the wildfire events that we are experiencing. Climate change has reached a crisis point, and we have to take bold action to avoid a major irreversible catastrophe. That means we have to invest in renewable energy.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing this amendment that would focus all of BOEM's resources on conventional energy. If my colleague from New Jersey wants to talk about the tragedy of what could happen to our States--I represent Maine, and we care about our beautiful coastline. We are worried about offshore oil drilling and the fishermen's impact, the potential impact on tourism of an oil spill, all of the things we have seen happen in other places.
We want to invest in the renewable and wind industry. To say it would reduce our tourism industry down to zero is ludicrous. To say it would do this to our fishing industry without careful management would be ridiculous.
I have been to visit the countries of Norway and Denmark. I have talked to the people from Scotland about their offshore wind projects. It hasn't eliminated tourism or reduced their fishing industry. This is misinformation made up because people want to stick to their dependence on oil and gas and the things that we have to eliminate.
I oppose this amendment. It has nothing good about it. We should not reduce the funding from the renewable energy programs, and we should continue in the way that we are.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this is another partisan amendment that wastes more time on a bill that should go nowhere. Cutting $15,000 and taking away the Cabinet Secretary's ability to host Tribal members and other important dignitaries is just petty.
At a time when we are seeing record numbers of historic storms and climate events, this is what my colleagues across the aisle have chosen to care about?
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I want to be clear. I fully support hazardous fuels reduction activities at the BLM. I am so sorry for the wildfires that have occurred in Colorado and in so many other States across our Nation.
I come from the most forested State in the Nation, the State of Maine. We know how important good forest management is. We know how important this is, but I absolutely do not support the offset.
The EPA has already been cut by 39 percent, and further cuts to its core programs will only embolden polluters and weaken the safety of our water and air.
We could easily fund both things, the EPA and forest management at the Forest Service, if the majority had produced their bills at levels that were agreed upon and passed into law in the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
If my colleagues across the aisle are serious about managing hazardous fuels at BLM, it would have been fully funded in the base bill.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I want to address some of the same concerns about this amendment as I did in the previous amendment.
To be clear, I fully support active forest management at the Forest Service. I feel very bad about the wildfires that have occurred in Colorado and so many other States across our country. I can't imagine the devastation to a family who loses their home or a community that finds the entire community leveled by a forest fire.
I am also very aware of the importance of managing our forests, whether it is the timber sales or the great benefit we get from well- maintained forests. I come from the most forested State in the Nation. Sustainable forest products and our wood products industry are extremely important, and managing those forests is extremely important.
Mr. Chair, I cannot support this offset. The EPA has already been cut by 39 percent. Further cuts to its core program will only embolden polluters and weaken the safety of our water and air.
We can easily fund both things, the EPA and forest management at the Forest Service, if only the majority had produced a bill at the level that was agreed upon and passed into law by the Fiscal Responsibility Act. If my colleagues across the aisle are serious about active forest management at the Forest Service, it would have been fully funded in the base bill.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, to be clear, I fully support all oversight efforts and believe the mission of the inspectors general across government is vital, but I disagree with the offset and the treatment of the EPA in this bill generally.
In the base bill, the EPA is cut by nearly 40 percent. Every single account is cut except for the Office of the Inspector General. Quite frankly, the inspector general's office does pretty well under this bill.
Cutting every single program at the EPA and seeking to increase funding for only one office, which happens to be the oversight office, is a clear attempt by the majority to politicize the inspector general, and that is unacceptable.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I am pretty sure this is deja vu all over again. I think we have already had an amendment to cut or eliminate the Council on Environmental Quality. This one does it by cutting 36 percent.
This office is responsible for coordinating the Federal Government's efforts to improve, preserve, and protect Americans' public health and environment. It also works to ensure that environmental reviews for infrastructure projects and Federal actions are thorough, efficient, and reflect the input of the public and local communities.
This amendment would hobble the office and result in significant delays to the very important infrastructure projects going on all across this country.
We have debated this once already. This was a bad amendment then. It is a bad amendment now. I oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is back again. I think it is still deja vu all over again because this is now the third time we have taken up this amendment. It is to, once again, eliminate the Council on Environmental Quality. We have a pending roll call on that very exact question.
It just seems to me we have plenty to do around here. We have plenty to do and are having a very busy day. We will have a very busy day tomorrow, and we have very ambitious goals on the part of the majority to pass through a lot of appropriations bills.
Why in the world would we have three of the same amendments?
I appreciate that different people wanted to give different perspectives on it, but couldn't they all have spoken on the same amendment?
I also would just say that a lot of my colleagues on this side of the aisle had amendments that were eliminated and that weren't given a chance to speak on the floor.
If the majority had just gone from three to one of these amendments, they could have used the time for two more of my colleagues' amendments and we could have had a little more Democratic debate, perhaps on reinstating funding for the National Museum of the American Latino. There were a lot of good things we would like to see discussed under this bill.
Why in the world did the majority have to have us discuss this a third time?
Mr. Chairman, I do want you to know I have my talking points. I can say exactly the same things about why it is very arbitrary to eliminate the Council on Environmental Quality, why the office is important in establishing the Federal Government's efforts to improve, preserve, and protect Americans' public health and environment, also to ensure that environmental reviews for infrastructure projects and Federal actions are thorough, efficient, and reflect the input of the public and local communities, and I know you appreciate hearing that from me three times.
Nevertheless, it just seems to me that if we were managing this floor in a way that really made the best use of all our colleagues' time we would either give a few more amendments to the Democratic minority or we would just do this once, have one roll call, and give the majority all a chance to speak on that particular bill and voice their opinion.
It is still a bad amendment. We will still oppose this amendment, and we shouldn't be doing this at this particular time.
Once again, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I am just so sad that we have to debate this amendment to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
The NEA is the Federal agency that funds, promotes, and strengthens the creative capacity of our communities by providing all Americans-- that is all Americans--with diverse opportunities for arts participation.
With the very small $186.3 million in this bill, the small but mighty agency supports arts organizations and artists in every congressional district in the country, and these investments yield enormous economic benefits.
My colleague on the other side of the aisle says that he pays for his own arts. He makes sure that his family has the arts opportunities and that his children's art is paid for.
However, every community does not have the funding to pay for their own arts. Not every community can afford arts and music in their schools. They can't afford these opportunities. Yes, there is private- sector funding, but private-sector funding goes to where the private sector wants it to be spent. It doesn't make sure that in rural States like mine that small towns can take advantage of this and that small arts organizations can have these opportunities.
A 2021 analysis done by the Department of Commerce and the NEA found that arts and cultural industries add over $1 trillion to the U.S. economy, support nearly 5 million jobs, and account for 4.4 percent of the GDP--4.4 percent.
In what other sector wouldn't we make a lousy $186 million investment in something that was going to add 4.4 percent to our GDP?
These guys would be all over it if it was auto manufacturing or chips or something else.
The arts have an incredible value as a positive tool for economic development, education, and community building. Defunding this important agency would cause catastrophic harm. It is a terrible idea.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), who is the chair of the committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, to close, I appreciate the words of Mr. Simpson, and I appreciate his acknowledgment that it is the rural communities, whether in his State of Idaho or my State of Maine, where there are so many communities that don't have the benefit of the private funding, they don't have the benefit of wealthy parents who can maybe afford to pay for their children's music and arts education. These are communities that desperately depend on this money.
I also want to say that while there is a lot of economic growth going on in the arts industry, that it is a huge contributor, that many of these venues--particularly the small ones--were the first to have to close their doors during the pandemic and the last to open, and many haven't recovered.
Many people who work in the arts industry, many artists themselves are still struggling to get back on their feet. That just makes this funding even more critically important.
This is a great way to make sure that everyone in America has the great educational benefit that all young people should have in arts and music and developing that level of creativity and curiosity and the so many wonderful educational benefits that we know come from having that education in the arts. This makes sure that it is available to everybody.
We are already facing a cut in this bill. We are going from $207 million--which was never enough; it ought to be at least a dollar per person--down to $186 million. This cut has already been taken. We don't need to do any more. Certainly, eliminating it would be a travesty.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I would just reiterate that I oppose this amendment that would defund the National Endowment for the Humanities. I thank the chair for his eloquent remarks about the importance of it in Idaho.
Idaho and Maine have a lot in common. Our potatoes are so much better, but other than that, we really could see eye to eye on so many issues. Sorry, I am sure their potatoes are perfectly fine.
This misguided amendment would significantly hinder support for high- quality projects and programs that reach every single State and territory and benefit millions of Americans.
NEH is a very unique source of funding for a wide range of local, nonprofit institutions and organizations across the country. This money goes to our States and our local organizations. These grants strengthen teaching and learning in the schools and colleges. They facilitate research and original scholarship, provide opportunities for lifelong learning, preserve and provide access to cultural and educational resources, and strengthen the institutional base of the humanities.
My colleague on the other side of the aisle who proposed this amendment says he doesn't really see the value of it and goes about to disregard some of the programs that are being funded through this. The fact is that sometimes we need to use literature, history, or the arts to talk about difficult topics. You may not think it is important for us to talk about climate change but, in fact, millions of young people, in fact millions of people in this country, are very worried about that and want to talk about it and think about how we can come with very diverse ideas to a solution that works for all of us.
The same with our diversity and equity issues. These are tough topics, and my colleague on the other side of the aisle would just have them eliminated, sweep them under the rug. Yet, we have the opportunity to use our great literature and the history of this country and the lessons that we have learned to have those conversations.
I don't know what planet this amendment comes from; someplace where these issues aren't important. Here they are very important. These programs are used by American veterans, by American senior citizens, and young people in our schools. They are so widely used in large and small communities, and they are good investments in our communities. These awards stimulate significant participation and commitment by local and private partners. They generate more money to do exactly what we are doing, so we should be doing more for the NEH, not less.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this misguided amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is one more controversial poison pill rider that sadly shows that the extreme Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.
In 2012, before the Bush tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office showed revenues exceeding primary spending for the next 65 years and that debt as a percent of GDP would decline indefinitely.
Since then, tax cut extensions and the Trump tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt to date, and their cost will increase enough over time to account for the entire long-term growth in debt ratio. Remember, those benefits are disproportionately enjoyed by the wealthy.
If we want to truly protect the American taxpayer, we should be marking up bills at the levels agreed to between the President and Speaker McCarthy and signed into law in the Fiscal Responsibility Act rather than bringing the government to the verge of a shutdown and now marking up bills that just don't just break the deal but obliterate it and cut crucial domestic investments.
Let's get serious about passing bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit all funds to the United States Board on Geographic Names. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by public law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government. The Board is comprised of representatives of Federal agencies concerned with geographic information, population, ecology, and management of public lands.
In this age of geographic information systems, the internet, and homeland defense, geographic names data are even more important. The Board works with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, and more than 50 nations have some type of national names authority.
My Republican colleagues should be focused on creating bills that will garner bipartisan support and become law, not prohibiting funding for a board that helps surveyors, mapmakers, and scientists, and serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am not an authority on this, but my understanding is that the Federal Government could not rename a town in a State. The Federal Government has authority on public lands on names that are related to public property.
I am very pleased that we have Secretary Deb Haaland as the Secretary of Interior right now, and I respect the fact that we have someone, for the first time ever, who is a member of a Tribe. Secretary Haaland has made a statement that using the word ``squaw'' is offensive to Native American Tribes, and I fully agree with her, and many people in my own State agree with her and have changed those names, but, in this particular case, I don't believe that the Department of the Interior can arbitrarily rename a town in any State in the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the use of any Federal funds to establish or modify any national monuments under the Antiquities Act within Colusa County, California. Now, I am very sorry that my colleague on the other side of the aisle feels this way. I appreciate being able to serve on the Agriculture Committee with him. We often have areas on agreement, but on this, we disagree.
The Antiquities Act provides the President with the authority to designate national monuments in order to protect the objects of historic or scientific interest. This amendment inappropriately restricts the President's ability to declare a national monument in specific parts of the country. Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have used this authority to increase the protection of special Federal lands.
In our State, we are particularly pleased that a previous President declared the Katahdin Woods and Waters as a national monument. And we are very glad about the way it has been managed and the fact that it is an important resource to our State. This bill would go against 100 years of American tradition to protect the Nation's cultural and natural resources. The Antiquities Act represents an important achievement in the progress of conservation and preservation efforts in the United States. Congress should not stand in the way of these achievements.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would block New York City from completing the terms of its lease agreement with the National Park Service, and it offers no solution for those seeking refuge.
This amendment would put up yet another obstacle for the residents of New York City as they try to address this unique challenge.
We should be looking for ways to help both residents of the city and the migrants as they navigate the often complicated and lengthy immigration process.
I know a little something about this challenge the cities are facing because while I don't represent New York City, I represent Portland, Maine, and other cities in Maine that have had a large influx of asylees coming to our State. Now, we are a very welcoming State, but we have some of the same challenges with finding sufficient housing for people while they are navigating this difficult process of asylum seeking.
Now let's just remember, we are a welcoming nation. Asylum seekers are coming from war-torn countries, from political challenges, and the process of seeking asylum can take a very long time. In my State, we have some of the same challenges trying to find sufficient housing.
I want to say that we can't forget the fact that, again, we are a welcoming nation. We are a welcoming State, and we are a nation of immigrants.
I don't know about my colleague across the aisle, but I am very fortunate that my grandfather had the opportunity to come to this country. And that allowed my family to be a part of the American Dream.
So many of the people who are coming here today are leaving, as I said, difficult political situations, war-torn nations, with real challenges to get here. Our immigration process is lengthy. They are, for the most part, legal asylum seekers. They need to go through a long court process.
If, in fact, she really wanted to do something that would significantly change the amount of time that people have to be in shelters or in housing, perhaps--I know it is on another bill--she could support my bill to reduce the amount of time that asylum seekers have to wait to get their work permits so that they could more rapidly go to work, so that they weren't waiting in shelters, in tents, in other places.
I don't know about your State, but in mine our chamber of commerce is constantly asking for more workers. We are constantly behind in having sufficient people to do the work. So to say that we do not want to welcome these people who come from war-torn nations and difficult political situations, and that we don't want to find a way to accommodate them, we should be looking for ways to speed up the process to make sure that people can go to work, and so that they can make sure that they can move forward and become those extremely responsible and hardworking members of American society that they choose to be.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am very sorry. I fully sympathize with the city of New York and the many challenges they are facing in managing this influx of people.
As I have said, I have had numerous conversations, whether it is the mayor of my own city of Portland or the city council or the many people who are working hard in social service agencies to make sure that we continue to be a welcoming country; that the asylum seekers who are legally in our country but waiting for the long process of their asylum application to be approved or denied, to get through that process, that they require housing.
I will just say a couple of things. I am sorry also that New York City recently had to experience the foot of water, but I encourage my colleagues to stop opposing measures to reduce the impact of climate change. Once again, they are turning their head at the things that are going to continue to happen more and more to some of our biggest cities in the country and rural areas, as well.
I also recommend that people don't have to stay in shelters for so long if we would only let them go to work. We have a provision for asylum seekers to get a work permit, but right now it takes 180 days. Why not just shorten it down to 30 days. When you are concerned about the cost of this and the cost of people going to work, we can make sure they go to work. I have talked to so many asylum seekers and their families. They are so anxious to go to work, and we have a worker shortage. This is one thing it seems like we could agree upon on both sides of the aisle.
I have no idea if you block this particular park in New York City, what you are going to do to solve this problem. This seems to me like just a mean-spirited attempt to try to turn away people who have nowhere else to turn, who are anxious to become workers in our society, and who need to go through a lengthy process. We could shorten that process.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would allow those who pollute the Chesapeake Bay to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency's water quality standards.
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed continues to be a priority. The EPA established mandatory water quality standards, and Congress has approved over $1 billion for the Chesapeake Bay program to help States, localities, and businesses meet those standards. This amendment would jeopardize that funding and have devastating effects on the health of the bay.
This amendment is not about the well-being of Virginia, Maryland, and the surrounding States. It is about the fact that some industrial operators don't think they should be responsible for controlling the pollution they dump into our rivers and streams across the country.
The courts have sided with the EPA on this matter.
For more than 35 years, the regional partnership created through the Chesapeake Bay program has sought to restore and protect the Nation's largest and most productive estuary.
This amendment would undermine decades of work and have lasting damaging effects to the health of the bay and the economy that it supports.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history. More than 1 million species are currently threatened with extinction, many within decades.
This amendment seeks to legislate species status rather than providing species with the protections they are afforded under the Endangered Species Act, our principle conservation law, and would potentially increase litigation regarding the government's responsibility to implement the statutory requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
Once again, my Republican colleagues are disregarding the law. We can have a legitimate debate on how to best manage our border and how to handle these issues, but that belongs in the Homeland Security bill and not here under this and not talking about the Endangered Species Act.
The best available scientific and commercial information--not politics--should determine whether a species is listed as threatened or endangered. This amendment circumvents the rigorous process that is in place to make these determinations, as well as the role of public input.
Historical range for these species was throughout the mainstem Rio Grande and select major tributaries in Texas and Mexico but today have been reduced to a single population that occupies only a fraction of this area.
Human activities that threaten and diminish animal habitats, pollute nature, and accelerate global warming are driving species extinction and creating unhealthy ecosystems.
When we lose a species, impacts reverberate throughout ecosystems and we all suffer because our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems.
Defunding the Service's ability to list species would work against the clear intent of the Endangered Species Act and would further litigation by outside groups on both sides.
It would also undercut the Service's ability to work collaboratively with Tribes, other Federal agencies, States, local communities, and landowners to conserve this species.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and protect vulnerable species so future generations benefit from a world with healthy ecosystems and robust biodiversity.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would bar the use of any Federal funds to create national monuments under the Antiquities Act in Malheur County, Oregon.
The Antiquities Act provides the President with the authority to designate national monuments in order to protect objects of historic or scientific interest. This amendment inappropriately restricts the President's ability to declare national monuments in specific parts of the country.
Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have used this authority to increase protection of special Federal lands. It goes against 100 years of American tradition to protect the Nation's cultural and natural resources.
The Antiquities Act represents an important achievement in the progress of conservation and preservation efforts in the United States. Congress should not stand in the way of these achievements.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is petty and punitive. Rather than pursuing grudges against public servants and spewing inaccurate and disrespectful information, my colleagues across the aisle should focus their energy on negotiating with the Senate on a bill to fund the government.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, the Endangered Species Act is the Nation's principle conservation law whose ultimate goals include preventing the extinction of species and providing for their recovery.
On June 4, 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service announced a plan to improve and strengthen implementation of the Endangered Species Act to address 21st century conservation challenges.
These agencies are proposing to revise three final rules issued in 2019 under the previous administration that do not adequately guide the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The proposed revisions are intended to improve and clarify the interagency consultation processes; listing, delisting, and reclassification decisions; and designation of critical habitat.
Why would anyone object to making regulations clearer, more straightforward, or improving implementation of the Endangered Species Act?
The Services also proposed to reinstate the 4(d) blanket rule options for protecting and conserving threatened species. Remember, Mr. Chair, providing a suite of protections for threatened species will help it avoid becoming an endangered species.
These proposed rules are now subject to public review and comment, and the Services will carefully consider the comments they receive before finalizing any changes.
The proposed revisions do not alter the standards for making listing and delisting decisions, nor will they automatically lead to an increase or decrease in the total amount or area of critical habitat that is designated. These decisions will still depend on the Services using the best scientific information available.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to consider how these revisions will make ESA regulations more consistent and efficient, and to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, we are now only 15 days away from a government shutdown, and instead of focusing on keeping the government open, we are working on a bill that is going nowhere.
The draconian cuts proposed in this bill violate the agreement reached by former Speaker McCarthy and President Biden and that were memorialized in statute in Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. We would not be teetering on the brink of a government shutdown if my Republican colleagues had held up their end of the bargain.
We are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, such as the drought, flooding, severe storm, and wildfire events we are experiencing. As of October 10, the United States has experienced 24 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each. This is a new record.
This amendment seeks to prohibit funding for the Bureau of Land Management to finalize, implement, or enforce a Draft Resource Management Plan and draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that would remove 1.6 million acres of public lands in Colorado from future oil and gas leasing. These lands do not have high oil and gas potential, and BLM's actions would protect the important wildlife habitat, recreation areas, and water resources, as well as reduce emissions and the impacts of climate change.
Not investing in strategies that minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change and instead paying billions in disaster relief shows my Republican colleagues are not thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer.
Our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change and making our Nation stronger, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy rider that sadly shows extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.
The proposed rule on fluid mineral leases and the leasing process aims to enhance the administration of oil and gas-related activities on America's public lands and reflects provisions in recently enacted laws that modify aspects of the Federal onshore oil and gas program whose regulations have not been updated since 1988. However, this amendment seeks to prohibit that.
Once again, my Republican colleagues are disregarding the law. This amendment circumvents the rigorous process that is in place to update outdated regulations, which includes opportunities for public input, protects the fiscal interests of the American public, and ensures proper stewardship of public lands and resources for the benefit of future generations.
The Government Accountability Office and the Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General have conducted audits of the BLM's Federal onshore oil and gas program and highlighted weaknesses that BLM needs to correct to ensure the American public receives a fair return from oil and gas activities on public lands.
I do not understand why my Republican colleagues would seek to undermine the efforts that address those weaknesses and protect the American public. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment to protect the fiscal interests of the American public and our natural resources so future generations benefit from a world with healthy ecosystems and robust biodiversity.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would block the Department of the Interior from its Bicycle Subsidy Benefit Program, which encourages Federal employees to use bicycles to commute to the office. Not unlike many wellness programs that are available in the public and private sector, this is a good idea for the fresh air, for personal health, for a whole host of reasons. It is also good for the environment. More of us should be on bicycles instead of occupying a car to commute back and forth to work.
The Department created this program in response to a 1993 law in which Congress authorizes each agency head to establish a program to encourage employees to use means other than single-occupancy motor vehicles to commute to and from work. It is a governmentwide program, and this amendment unfairly targets Interior employees.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to treat all employees fairly and reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from hiring scientists using its title 42 authority. Title 42 authority is a flexible hiring mechanism that allows agencies to attract and retain staff with outstanding scientific, technical, and clinical skills.
The authority is used by the EPA, CDC, NIH, and other agencies that require candidates to have specialized degrees in areas such as medicine, science, and engineering.
It is not always easy for the Federal Government to attract high- level professionals who have invested many years in school and can easily make more in private practice or even in academia. That is why the Federal Government allows these agencies to provide some additional funding to retain or recruit these employees.
Mr. Chair, I am dismayed that the gentleman does not believe such highly specialized employees deserve title 42 recognition.
With our Nation facing crises like COVID and climate change, we should be investing in our scientists. It is a shortsighted amendment that unfairly attacks Federal employees who devote their lives to public service.
Mr. Chair, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the chair of the committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source