Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, 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 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.
Furthermore, we are here to protect the welfare of the American public. We cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, such as the drought, flooding, severe storms, 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 to further understand greenhouse gases, which will result in more resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future generations.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I will point out one thing that my colleague said in what I thought was a very misguided argument.
He said the benefits of using our resources outweigh the costs. He said we ignore the benefits of fossil fuels by only focusing on rising temperatures and that this is our agenda. I want to be perfectly clear. Climate change is not my agenda. It is not the Democrats' agenda. It is the majority of all scientists' agenda around the world. It is the majority of facts based on what is going on with adverse weather, warming oceans, warming temperatures, and the hottest summer on record.
To say we are just looking at our agenda completely denies the challenges that we are facing today. There are plenty of benefits of fossil fuels. In fact, we have benefited from fossil fuels for generations. We have become an incredibly wealthy Nation. I don't deny that.
For all of us, we would rather continue with the status quo, but the fact is that we know how to create renewable energy, how to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and how to reduce the warming of our planet. It is our responsibility. It is not an agenda or sort of a whim or a fad. It is our responsibility.
That is what we are here to do, to protect the American public, to protect it for future generations.
I don't know about my colleague, but I have three children and seven grandchildren. Each one of those grandchildren, if not today, if not tomorrow, then when they are old enough to talk, are going to say: Grandma, what were you doing when the planet was melting? What did you do when you had the resources, ability, and scientific knowledge to convert to renewable resources? Yet, you decided to say: I am just going to stick my head in the sand and pretend the science doesn't exist. I am going to pretend that none of this matters and is some kind of an agenda or a fluke. I am just going to put my faith in the fossil fuel industry.
We know what to do here and know what our responsibility is here. To neglect that and not continue to do what we are supposed to do to reduce the impact and mitigate the influence of climate change is completely going against our responsibility to the American public and to future generations.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment. I ask my colleagues to continue to support the work that we are currently doing in this country to mitigate the impact of climate change.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment blocks an executive order that seeks to reestablish the Federal Government as a leader in sustainability and improve the Nation's preparedness and resilience to the effects of a changing climate.
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.
The Federal Government is the single largest landowner, energy consumer, and employer in the Nation, and it is appropriate that it would lead the Nation on a path to achieving net zero emissions by transforming how the government builds, buys, and manages electricity, vehicles, buildings, and other operations to be clean and sustainable.
Not investing in strategies that minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change and instead paying billions into disaster relief shows my Republican colleagues are not thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer.
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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I want to be clear. Congressional funding and inclusion in the annual appropriations bill is congressional oversight of the EPA. That is what Chairman Simpson, I, and the other members of the committee do every year so there is oversight of the EPA, and it is congressionally authorized funding.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. My colleague proposes that we don't allow the cancellation of lease sales in a pristine environment that is already suffering from the impacts of climate change. The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet.
It shows that my Republican colleague and so many others are not thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer. He should be focused, instead, on investing in strategies that minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change.
He invoked one of my favorite colleagues, our dear departed colleague Don Young. I remember several years ago when Don Young came to visit me in Maine to an Arctic conference, and we discussed climate change. He said: I haven't decided yet if this is man-made, but I do believe climate change is happening.
None of us can expect to share the words of Don Young, who is not with us here today, but I think he witnessed the warming that is going on in the Arctic in his State, the glacial melting.
I recently visited Alaska, and I met with Tribal communities. There are 31 communities, most of them Tribal communities, that currently have to be moved because of the glacial melting, because of the permafrost melting. The cost of that, I have heard some people estimate, is about a million dollars a person to move a community, not to mention the cultural loss, the economic loss.
The challenges that people are facing, what is going on in the Arctic today is unfathomable. Nothing we could have ever predicted. Nothing that the scientists could have predicted. Yet, my colleague wants us to continue drilling for oil. My colleague wants us to deny the importance of renewable energy.
We are talking about an area where it is expensive to drill. The fact is, most of the oil companies don't often want to be up there anymore, and it is not practical for us to be drilling for oil. To be doing it in the very places that are experiencing the losses because of climate change in such an extreme way makes absolutely no sense.
It is a misguided policy. To go against this cancellation of these lease sales is wrong. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change, making our Nation stronger, and investing in renewable energy.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, once again, I remind everyone, we are here to protect the welfare of the American public. This amendment would prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from balancing oil and gas development with protection of lands that harbor significant subsistence uses and resources throughout the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
My colleague is describing the Willow Project, an oil drilling project by ConocoPhillips that is located on the plain of the North Slope of Alaska in the National Petroleum Reserve. This amendment would prohibit the administration from stopping that project for all of the reasons we have previously discussed.
My colleagues are always talking about if we don't do this drilling, if we don't do this drilling in significantly critical areas like the North Slope of Alaska, like places where climate change is already having an unreasonable impact, we will have to go to untrustworthy foreign sources. Why is it they always use that argument, that somehow we have to go to untrustworthy foreign sources? Our goal is to convert to renewable energy, to have all American energy, whether it is wind or solar or tile or so many of the other opportunities that we have out there to make sure we do invest in America and American jobs instead of misguided projects like this.
This amendment also prohibits the BLM's ability to respond to changing conditions in the Arctic while providing transparency and conservation and development decisions.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I have just one more thing to say about this project, just to know what we are talking about. It is not a hypothetical. As we have mentioned, we have already talked about the excessive warming that is happening in the Arctic, the changes they are already experiencing in places like Alaska. This project is likely to produce 287 million tons of carbon emissions plus other greenhouse gases over 30 years. It would adversely impact Arctic wildlife and Native American communities. This would damage the complex local tundra ecosystem. According to another government estimate, it would release the same amount of greenhouse gases annually as half a million homes.
We know how to do this in another way. We don't have to do this project. We don't have to drill for oil in sensitive areas, and we don't need to do this particular project.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, 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, I am opposed to 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 the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is petty and punitive.
Rather than pursuing grudges against public servants, 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 to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the withdrawal for 20 years of public lands surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park from mineral leasing in order to protect these lands and the greater connected landscape in New Mexico with a rich Puebloan and Tribal nation legacy from the impacts associated with oil and gas development activities.
It does not impact valid existing rights nor non-Federal interests in the area that will be withdrawn.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chair, I, too, rise in opposition to amendment No. 86.
As noted, this amendment would roll back protections for Federal lands and Federal lands only within a 10-mile area around the World Heritage Site, Chaco Culture National Historical Park, in New Mexico, in my district, and only from new oil and gas drilling.
I stand here on the second day of Native American Heritage Month, and what we are doing on the second day of Native American Heritage Month is not recognizing, honoring, and protecting Native American heritage. Instead, what this amendment is doing is destroying Native American heritage. It is destroying the ability of Native Americans who hold these lands and these sites sacred to continue to practice their spiritual and religious beliefs.
Let's remember that what you are doing is undermining the ability of people to practice their historic spiritual and religious beliefs because not only is Chaco County a World Heritage Site, but it remains to this day a place of cultural and religious significance to the descendants of the Greater Chaco region.
We need to remember that Chaco Canyon is unique. Between A.D. 900 and 1150, Chaco was the heart of ceremonial, trade, and political activity for the Ancestral Puebloans. The sweeping ceremonial center you need to go visit is unlike anything constructed before or since.
However, for the Native Americans who come from this area, Chaco is not an old place. The sacred nature of Chaco continues unbroken in its importance to them today.
Given its history, you can imagine the importance of protecting this land and its people's ability to truly practice their faith.
It is true that there are different points of view within the Navajo Nation, but let's remember how this bill and how these protections that have been put into place came to be.
It was the former Navajo Nation president who first approached the Pueblos in an effort to protect these lands. The advocacy for these protections began in 2013 when the Eastern Navajo Agency Council passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on new fracking activities within their agency.
Navajo Nation's advocacy continued, and in 2017, Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye, Vice President Jonathan Nez, and the All Pueblo Council of Governors joined together in a statement opposing new fracking in the Greater Chaco region.
Protecting Chaco then became a collaborative process. It resulted eventually in the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act, which passed this body in the 116th Congress with the support of every Democrat and 17 Republicans.
The secretarial withdrawal this amendment attacks only happened after an extensive process of public engagement that included consultation with all the Tribal nations, including the Navajo Nation, the Pueblos, and those people who live in Arizona as well who are actually constituents of the sponsor of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, 100,000 public comments is not ignoring the people. That is listening to them. It was years of Tribal collaboration that made these protections possible.
Mr. Chair, let me correct the record. This does not affect in any way Navajo allottees' land. It does not affect in any way Navajo Tribal lands. It does not affect in any way rights-of-way or any infrastructure that is needed.
The existing oil and gas activity can continue, and new oil and gas activity can continue, but just not on Federal lands.
The existing royalties that are presently going to the Navajo allottees will continue in force, but we must admit that these withdrawals and protections are difficult. You must weigh the cultural and spiritual significance of an area that could be lost forever against the value of mineral development.
One molecule of gas is the same wherever it is extracted, but once you destroy a sacred site, you will never get it back.
I believe, even though I recognize the importance of the economic value of withdrawal, that we must err on the side of protection.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to see my good friend on the other side of the aisle, and sorry that I so violently disagree with him on this particular issue, maybe not violently, but strongly disagree with him on this issue.
This amendment seeks to force the Secretary of the Interior to issue more oil and gas lease sales instead of allowing for the transition to clean energy that will result in more resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future generations.
To not invest in strategies that minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change instead of paying billions in disaster relief shows that my colleague is not thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer. Our economy and health and livelihood, food security, quality of life all depend on us making progress on climate change and renewable energies.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, my colleagues are always saying we have to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, the United States is still a major producer of oil and gas, but we have to make the investments and force ourselves to move forward on renewable energy.
We have done that through bills like the IRA. We continue to do that, and I just want to continue to support that and make sure that we are opposing expanding our oil and gas leases and just investing in renewable energy.
Mr. Chair, 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 seeks to block air quality monitoring. So often, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle start their speeches by saying, We believe in clean air, we believe in clean water, but apparently they don't, and certainly, in this case, this amendment does not.
Now, I come from a State with one of the highest rates of asthma. Asthma is directly attributed to not having clean air. One in nine people in Maine is experiencing asthma. Those are children. Those are adults. Those are people who have serious health impacts because of that, so why we would ever deny the opportunity to do more air quality monitoring to make sure our citizens are safe, to make sure our children don't have asthma, it is just beyond me.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I 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 rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's invitation for us all to come visit. I am sure it is a wonderful place. And, of course, being from Maine, we like anything that has the word crab in the title.
Unfortunately, this amendment blocks the National Park Service from complying with the 1998 Concessions Act, which sets up the framework for evaluating commercial services and parks. It stops the Park Service from being able to complete its existing process to remain in compliance with the Act.
The amendment would effectively grandfather in all permit holders from the prior year, regardless of whether the services are necessary and appropriate. The amendment also limits the National Park Service's ability to ensure public safety of commercial services.
Currently, all vendors undergo public health, fire, and permit condition inspections throughout an operating season. These inspections have documented significant concerns such as food being cooked, held, or served at temperatures or conditions that do not meet public health standards; refueling processes that place workers and patrons at risk; lack of basic safety, and fire protection; and operating in violation of permit conditions.
The amendment eliminates the ability to manage the issuance of a permit based on current or past performance, which creates conditions that place workers, visitors, and park resources at risk from some commercial services. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment once again attempts to block the administration from ensuring that the air we breathe is clean. I truly think we can all agree that breathing clean air is a basic right. For that reason, I oppose 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 rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the use of any Federal funds to implement, administer, or enforce the Presidential proclamation that establishes the ancestral footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in Arizona, an area significant to many Tribal nations.
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 the 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.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, 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 am opposing this amendment which would block the Bureau of Energy Management from implementing the terms of a stay agreement between NOAA and several NGOs related to mitigation measures to protect the Rice's whales in the Gulf of Mexico.
I guess my confusion here is that this amendment has already been overtaken by events. On October 27, NOAA announced that it had denied the petition from several NGOs to establish a mandatory 10-knot speed limit and other vessel-related mitigation measures to protect the Rice's whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Further, NOAA stated that it will not be proceeding with the rulemaking at this time.
I guess I would ask the gentleman, now that he is aware of this development, since this happened just on October 27, would he consider withdrawing this unnecessary amendment from a bill that is already bloated with riders? It seems to have no purpose.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, once again, I would say I understand we have disagreements on energy policy, and I understand that my colleagues often like an opportunity to criticize the Biden administration because they don't agree with their stand on energy policy.
I just want to be clear. Again, the Biden administration didn't do this, as he said in his remarks and I clarified. This was an NGO that sued to have this happen, but NOAA stated it is not proceeding with the rulemaking at this time. The Biden administration is not doing this. It is not slowing down boats. It is not stopping boats at night. None of the things that he said were actually true. In fact, they have backed off on this.
I know we all have moments in our own State. I represent a coastal State. We have all kinds of disagreements on lawsuits that are filed against current practices, but that didn't happen.
Could he just withdraw this? Because he has got an amendment about something that isn't happening. Believe me, we have got enough disagreement and misinformation and there are enough harmful riders in this bill. I would respectfully request that he just withdraw this and acknowledge that none of this actually happened.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's thoughts. I continue to disagree. I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, this amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy rider that sadly shows that the Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.
The amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior from removing any monument on land under their jurisdiction.
There can be many reasons a monument would need to be removed, such as the health and safety of visitors and staff. This amendment provides no latitude for the Department to steward the land and resources they are responsible for.
In 15 days, the government will shut down, yet we are spending time on a bill that will never become law and on this superfluous partisan poison pill rider.
We should be focused on creating a bipartisan bill that abides by the agreement reached in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
Let's do the job we were elected to do, ensure the American people receive the benefits and services they are entitled to.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the thoughts of the former Secretary of the Interior, and I thank him for his service, but I want to be clear. Let me read this back. There may have been an earlier version of this, but this one says: ``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to remove any monument on land under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, just to clear up a couple of things. My colleague mentioned the Founding Fathers. Robert E. Lee was not one of the Founding Fathers. He was a general of the Confederacy. That was in the city of Charlottesville. That wasn't a national monument when that statue was removed.
I have to say, I find it rich that the party that has supported book banning in our libraries, rewriting curriculum, and not talking about our history over and over again is the very one that is saying that we have to often keep painful monuments in places where they do damage, where they interfere with people's ability to enjoy the particular area that they are in, and leave it to the Department of the Interior to have that discretion.
If we are going to get into talking about book banning and rewriting history, let's have an honest debate about it and talk about the differences between our two parties on this.
Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System identifies and characterizes the health hazards of chemicals found in the environment in an impartial manner. IRIS assessments are critical in understanding the environmental risks we face.
This amendment would deny Americans a valuable tool in understanding the health effects resulting from chronic exposure to chemicals. This includes cancer descriptors that help us better understand which chemicals are most likely to cause cancer.
Madam Chair, I support the work done by the EPA. I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I am just sad about this. I really don't understand why my colleague would want to roll back this great program on clean schoolbuses. I just don't understand. I mean, first off, you have to deny that climate change is real in order to say we shouldn't be doing significant things like this, converting our transportation system--which is an enormous part of climate change challenges, converting our transportation system to electric vehicles.
We have had this program since the IIJA, which was actually a bipartisan program. Perhaps you didn't vote for it. You may not have agreed with it, but it was a bipartisan bill, and this was in that bill, so this funding is already out there.
I have had the good fortune of talking to someone who works in one of the school programs where they have the clean schoolbus program. He couldn't say enough good things about it. He couldn't say enough about how good it has been for their district.
Number one, I don't know if you know this about electric vehicles, but your maintenance costs go way down. For most communities who have big schoolbus fleets, they have to have a maintenance barn. They have to have maintenance members who work in there, and this has reduced greatly their costs for maintaining the vehicles because there are not a lot of component parts in an electric vehicle.
He also told me that they have a little competition with the bus drivers. Each one is trying to figure out how long can I go on a charge? How does my bus work? They are all very engaged in this process.
Also importantly, there are no emissions from this bus. I don't know if you heard me earlier, but I was talking about the high asthma rate in my State. We are one of the top 10 in the country in asthma rates, and that means asthma in kids. So for kids to be able to ride on a bus that has no emissions, it is just that much better for their health and well-being.
There are no good reasons to want to eliminate this. We have already funded it. There is no funding in this bill. You are just talking about this as sort of a grudge match against electric schoolbuses, which, frankly, there are more important problems to deal with in this country.
We have already funded this. School districts are already implementing this, applying for this. It is reducing their maintenance costs. They feel very good about these buses.
I suggest you talk to a school district, maybe one in your own district, your congressional district, and ask them how they feel about this, how it is working for their community.
You are opposing something that has gone very well. You are trying to prohibit a program that runs on clear fuel, that reduces the impact schoolbuses have on climate change. We are doing something good for America in this program, good for our schools, good for the health of our kids. There is no possible reason to want to do this, that is why I said it just makes me sad.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, if my colleague is so concerned about the challenges that students are facing in our schools, and I admit many schools are facing challenges because kids have been home during the pandemic, they have had a lot of setbacks, we are in a very difficult time in our world, kids have a lot to worry about, I would suggest that he debates another bill in support of encouraging more funding for the Department of Education. That would be a good place to put his concerns, but I would have to say there is no reason to be concerned about the schoolbuses.
In fact, we should be happy about the schoolbuses because we are implementing electrification of our fleet. We are helping the well- being of our students by making sure there are less emissions from those buses, and they can ride on buses with cleaner air. We are reducing the cost of schools who are able to use these electric buses. I am in strong support of making sure that we have more electrification of our schoolbuses. I encourage my colleagues to reject the amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam 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, first I have to say, I am perplexed that anyone would not want to provide good-paying jobs that will help our Nation tackle the climate crisis and build a stronger country. The goal of the American Climate Corps is to put more than 20,000 young people on career pathways in the growing fields of clean energy, conservation, and climate resilience.
In launching this effort, President Biden is calling on Tribal, State, and local governments, labor unions, not-for-profit service allies, the private sector, and philanthropy to collaborate with the Federal Government to build on current relationships and expand skills- based training partnerships to ensure our workforce is ready to meet the climate crisis.
We have seen the devastation to coastal communities impacted by hurricanes and tropical storms. Why would we not want to train our youth to restore coastal wetlands that can protect communities from storm surges. We know the damage and loss that accompanies wildfires across our Nation. So why would we not want to train youth to manage forests, to improve health, and prevent catastrophic wildfires?
We know the power of skills-based training as a tool to expand pathways into good-paying jobs. Let's not deny our youth this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I don't remember mentioning social movements or environmental justice, although I do think environmental justice is very important. I was talking about skill training and making sure our youth are prepared for the jobs of the future. I don't anticipate that they can stop storms. That would be Herculean, and I don't think anyone can stop climate change at this point, but I think they can help us deal with catastrophic wildfires, with coastal resilience. We can train people with skills of the future. This is a wonderful opportunity for our young people. I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. 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, one of our greatest strengths as a Nation is our diversity. The American experience is not a singular experience, and diversity programs exist to recognize this.
The fact is, and business leaders agree, having a diverse and inclusive culture in the workplace is critical to performance. Attempting to defund or block the implementation of these efforts only takes us back to a time when our Nation's diversity was not seen as an asset.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I 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 the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I 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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I could say it any better than the chair of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee did about the reason that it never makes sense to use this amendment to reduce somebody's salary. Reducing somebody's salary to $1 is basically firing them.
When it comes to Michael Regan, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, my colleagues are talking about a hardworking public servant. I think we are very fortunate to have him there and to have him dealing with some of the biggest challenges our country is facing, whether it is climate change or environmental pollution, and moving our country forward in a very difficult time. We are grateful to have him there.
To ask a public servant to take $1 for their hard work in carrying out this administration's goals is ludicrous.
To my colleague on the Agriculture Committee, we serve together and have many areas that we work together on, and to have sort of a grudge match about this consideration about solar panels on agricultural land, frankly, doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, his mission is to make sure we incentivize solar panels, absolutely, of course.
However, to say that he is trying to do this on rich, fertile farmland goes against the mission of the USDA, and it goes against the mission of this administration.
It is always a difficult balance to figure out where to put solar panels. I know in my State we have found some projects where we have dual use where some kinds of agriculture actually can accommodate solar panels and also have grazing land and blueberry land. We have a variety of things going on. Nobody thinks we should use rich farmland--in a time when we are losing farmland all too fast--for solar panels, and I am sure Administrator Regan doesn't either.
Nevertheless, incentivizing solar panels, yes, that is absolutely the mission of the EPA. I am thrilled they are doing that and moving us faster and faster towards renewable energy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to a couple of concerns that my colleague on the other side of the aisle raised, if we are about to promote a culture of volunteerism, I think it is very hard to ask the hardworking administrators of the EPA to serve for a dollar when we all get paid $175,000 a year which is a lot of money in my home State. I am very grateful the taxpayers of this country support us to that tune, but until all of us are willing to take a dollar for our work, it is hard to ask the hardworking members of the administration to do the same.
To say that Members on the left somehow don't want India or China to reduce their impact on climate change and their use of fossil fuels, that is ludicrous. I know that Secretary Kerry has spent a lot of time meeting with those countries trying to reduce things that they are doing that impact climate change. I agree. Those countries have to reduce it just as we are reducing it in this country.
To say that solar panels somehow should be not used in this country because we are dependent on buying them from China, well, that is based on the shortsightedness of Republicans who have consistently blocked our involvement in renewable energy.
Had the gentleman voted for the IRA, he would have seen that we are incentivizing American manufacturing and doing our best to return the manufacturing of those solar panels to this country, and if we are going to consistently oppose renewable energy and oppose the manufacture of renewable energy, then we are just going to fall further and further behind in making sure that we are making those components here in the United States.
So, once again, I 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, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding. I just say that, again, this idea of asking public servants to be volunteers, to serve for $1, actually carries no weight until all of the Members of Congress are also willing to serve for $1. It is completely impractical, and it would mean that only a few people would have the opportunity to serve as Members of Congress or to be in the executive branch.
Also, to criticize Deb Haaland, a woman who I was very proud to serve with in the House of Representatives, who we were very pleased to have her here as one of the first Native American women elected to Congress, but then to go on to lead the Department of the Interior as a Native American woman who also has oversight of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, who has had so much personal experience but also experience within her own community, who has a deep love of our public lands, of our natural systems, and in my opinion, has done a fantastic job, this is insulting. It is petty. We shouldn't even be here standing at this hour of the night talking about such a highly regarded and well-respected public servant.
Mr. Chair, I thoroughly oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the President of the United States from designating national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906. The Antiquities Act provides the President with the authority to designate national monuments in order to protect objects of historic or scientific interest. Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have used this authority to increase protection of special Federal lands.
This amendment inappropriately restricts the President's ability to declare national monuments in specific parts of the country. 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, and Congress should not stand in the way of these achievements.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I continue to 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, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to prohibit funding for the EPA's Global Change Research Program, which will result in more resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future generations.
The gentleman who proposed this amendment said that there is too much research on climate change and that climate change alarmism, as he called it, is immoral.
In my perspective, not being alarmed by the possibility of climate change is actually immoral. Our responsibility is to care for and protect future generations, to care for and protect the planet.
He said that the impact is too great on businesses and is creating problems for businesses. I say if we don't deal with climate change, we are impacting all of our businesses that have to deal with things in my State like sea level rise, adverse weather impacts, flooding, drought, all the things that are impacting our farmers, natural resource-based businesses, and communities.
It is our responsibility to do something about this. To say it is just alarmist or that somehow we shouldn't talk about it, research it, or do something about it is putting our heads in the sand and not taking responsibility for what we need to do.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, there is a lot of alarmism going on because we are facing a significant climate crisis. We just had the hottest summer on record. We are having some of the most challenging weather, whether it is a hurricane or a drought or flooding, impacting all of us in all of our districts.
We are facing this and trying to end our dependence on foreign sources of energy by making sure that we have renewable energy in this country, by investing in American businesses, not Chinese owned, not other foreign countries, but making sure as we did through the IRA that we are investing in American manufacturing and American energy solutions.
Most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose this. They continue to oppose the solutions that we have to implement to make sure that we are energy independent and that we can deal with climate change. This is one more example of that.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit any funds to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates. This amendment is one of the more controversial poison pill policy riders that sadly shows extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.
Preventing disease reduces healthcare costs, such as hospitalization and pharmaceuticals, and benefits employers by resulting in less employee absenteeism. Facial masks are an essential personal protective measure to fight the COVID-19 virus.
We also know that some people infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 can suffer from the long-term effects from their infection, meaning they can experience health problems that can last for years. Why would we politicize something that would help our fellow Americans stay healthy?
From January 3, 2020, to September 27, 2023, there were 1,127,152 deaths from COVID-19 in the United States reported to the World Health Organization, some of whom the people in this room knew and loved.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I don't know that we have time to debate all the science tonight, but a study that says that mask using has no impact, I wouldn't want to go into a surgery ward and find out that the surgeon who was about to perform my operation wasn't wearing a mask.
To say that hand washing doesn't matter, I have never seen a physician who doesn't go into the emergency room or a surgical room without washing their hands.
Social distancing, this is starting to sound a little bit like crack science to me, not anything very serious, something that you might see on the internet or social media, so I question my colleague's science in this regard.
I also just say I oppose this amendment.
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. The Environmental Financial Advisory Board supports the EPA's mission to lower the cost of and increase investment in environmental and public health protection.
Just to be clear about its role, here are some of the activities the board pursues: ways to lower the cost of environmental protection; remove financial and programmatic barriers that raise costs; increase public and private contributions in environmental facilities and services; and build State and local financial ability to meet environmental laws.
This mission is critical if we want to ensure that the investments we need to protect our country from climate change are sound and achievable.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. 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, it is hard for me to actually understand my colleague's argument here. He opposes modernizing the Mineral Leasing Act, basically raising lease fees at a time when he is complaining about the deficit, meaning the revenue could be very helpful.
The way I read this, we are just catering to oil and gas interests, enabling them to continue to operate at rates that don't benefit the American people.
I have no idea how this works well for us. Why would my colleague think that at a time when he is also looking for more ways to balance our budget?
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't possibly call the Inflation Reduction Act a scam that has ruined anything in America. I have to say it is one of the best things we have ever done. It is the first time we have made a significant investment in renewable energy and in defeating climate change.
I am sorry that my colleague doesn't see it in the same way. I am sorry that my colleague thinks that the only way we can end our dependence on foreign oil is to drill in his front yard. I wish him luck on that. I hope that he does discover oil in his front yard. That could be an amazing day in his life.
The fact is that we need to invest in renewable energy. We need to invest in American manufacturing.
The very idea that this incredibly wealthy industry, the oil and gas industry, shouldn't pay reasonable rates when it is extracting resources from the land that belongs to all Americans, that somehow that should be a free kind of giveaway to them, is that what the free market is? America giving away its resources to highly profitable companies is not the way I see the free market. I see the free market as paying a fair price.
For this administration to modernize this act to make sure that gas and oil interests are paying a fair price when they do drill on American public land seems only reasonable to me. It seems like a better way to take care of American taxpayers.
While the gentleman might say that doesn't amount to much money, I have been listening to bill after bill tonight where people say this person's salary here will make a difference on the deficit, that $15,000 cuts to the Secretary of the Interior would make a difference on the deficit.
I have been hearing all night long--in fact, all day and all night long, as I recall--that every penny counts. That these pennies don't count because we should be giving a break to the oil and gas industry goes far beyond my understanding of how business should work and how our job protecting American resources should work.
Once again, this is a terrible amendment, one in a string of terrible amendments, and I oppose it.
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 the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, we 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, I strongly oppose this amendment that would cripple the EPA's ability to exercise its criminal enforcement function by preventing the EPA criminal enforcement from being able to issue warrants, make arrests, or carry firearms.
I am truly befuddled by this attack on law enforcement. The majority's disdain for the EPA has been evident throughout the debate of this bill, but this amendment is beyond the pale.
I cannot understand how anyone would think it is a good idea to give a pass to criminals who deliberately break the law.
The EPA's criminal enforcement function is a vital part of our efforts to help protect the environment and safeguard the public health, but it is important to recognize that it is only one part of these efforts.
The fact is that EPA's compliance and enforcement process is a multistep process that uses criminal law enforcement only as a last resort. EPA initially provides compliance assistance to help the regulated community understand and comply with regulations. EPA compliance monitoring subsequently assesses compliance through inspections and other activities.
Enforcement actions are initiated only when the regulated community does not comply or when cleanup is required. Criminal actions are usually reserved for the most serious violations, those that are willful or knowingly committed.
The mere threat of criminal action can and does help ensure compliance. If this irresponsible amendment passes and we remove the threat of criminal action, we will inevitably see a decline in willful compliance of our environmental laws. That would be bad news for all of us, as the quality of our air, water, and public health will inevitably suffer.
As to the issue of EPA personnel carrying firearms, I would point out that more than 70 Federal agencies employ law enforcement officers who are authorized to carry firearms and make arrests in the United States, including the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The EPA is hardly unique in this regard.
Make no mistake, this amendment is clearly anti-law enforcement. It cripples the ability of the EPA to ensure enforcement of our environmental laws and will inevitably lead to even more harm to the public health.
Let's ensure that the EPA can continue to enforce our Nation's environmental standards.
Mr. Chair, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, section 115 of the Clean Air Act is essential. It enables the United States to work with other nations to address transboundary air pollution.
As we have seen recently while Canada was experiencing historic wildfires, pollution knows no boundaries and can travel anywhere, whether by air or water.
We cannot address these environmental issues on our own, and we must work with other nations. Prohibiting the EPA from implementing section 115 of the Clean Air Act is shortsighted, and I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, on top of the cuts already included in the base bill, this would nearly eliminate the office. This means that we will no longer have anyone in the government to run programs that prevent air pollution, ensure high-quality indoor and outdoor air, monitor and reduce pollution from vehicles and engines, prevent acid rain, protect the public against radiation, and monitor and address stratospheric ozone depletion.
These draconian and shortsighted cuts put all Americans at risk.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, honestly, I don't even know where to start. I am pretty sure it is about midnight, and this is the United States Congress. We are dealing with enormous challenges in the world. We currently have a war going on in Ukraine with Russia, in Israel with the Hamas, and we are trying to face a climate change and so many serious issues, and we are here debating a plastic straw, whether or not plastic straws should be used, whether or not they are the best alternative.
I understand it is complicated, what is the best kind of straw to use, a reusable straw, a paper straw, or a plastic straw, and there are issues related to this. Nonetheless, this is because of a mandate to reduce the amount of single-use plastic.
I don't know about you, Mr. Chair, but I have an ocean border that is longer than any other ocean border in the United States, and one of the big challenges that we are dealing with right now is an excess amount of plastic in the ocean. We have no good recycling in this country. We have excess amounts of plastics in our landfill, and we have toxics that we are dealing with every day. So reducing our amount of single- use plastic is important.
Whether or not it is our job in Congress to decide what kind of straw should be used or exactly how these bans should be implemented, I just don't think it is something that we should be doing at midnight when we have a lot of big problems to deal with.
I am just disappointed to see this amendment, to see that my colleague doesn't want to address the big challenges that we have with single-use plastic, and the difficult issues that have to be dealt with.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source