Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would eliminate the funding for the EPA Air, Climate, and Energy research program. I think we all know that the Clean Air Act has resulted in one of the most effective public health programs in American history by addressing air quality in the United States.

What this amendment would do would be to set back any advances in new technology and new scientific tools that would help protect the American public from harmful exposure to air pollutants which, as we know, can damage our health, causing lung and heart disease, impact our immune, nervous, and reproductive systems, and shorten our lives.

Millions of people in America live in counties that do not meet air quality standards for one or more pollutants, and new threats from climate change expand the air quality challenges confronting our society.

The energy choices we make clearly influence air quality and climate change. Eliminating EPA funding to research and understand the impacts on air quality from alternative energy sources is, at a minimum, shortsighted.

The bill already reduces the EPA by $164 million from the FY 2016 enacted level. I think we have already done enough damage in that particular reduction.

For the health and welfare of our citizens, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few points about this amendment. As my colleague has said, this would reduce the funds from EPA operations by $14 million and increase the Inspector General by $10 million. I think we would certainly agree that it would be a good idea to increase the funding for the Inspector General, and we would like to see the other side increase those funds.

But we are uncomfortable with the idea of taking the funding from the operating account. This account has already been cut by $92 million, and it would reduce the operating account by $14 million, putting that money over there. This seems like too severe of a cut on top of what has already been done.

We don't disagree that the work of the Inspectors General across all agencies in Federal Government are necessary and very important and they do good work.

So, once again, I just oppose the shift in funding. I think it would be great if the other side wanted to enhance the funding for the Office of Inspector General, just not through this mechanism.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I have to strongly oppose this amendment that would take even more money from the already starved EPA. The bill has already severely cut the Environmental Protection Agency's main operating account by $92 million. This would cut it by another $70 million. And so far tonight, we have agreed to another $29 million through amendments.

The very air we breathe and the water we drink are endangered by the funding and the policy decisions that are already made in this bill. Their consequences will be felt negatively in communities across this country.

I know it is often an easy target for my colleagues across the aisle to cut the EPA, but I do want my colleagues to understand what this amendment would mean if this cut was adopted.

The account funds programs that are important to both sides of the aisle, including permitting for construction projects across the country; toxics; risk prevention; part of the successful brownfields program; pesticides licensing, which, as we know, is a critical part of fighting the Zika crisis.

In my opinion, this very large cut would be irresponsible, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I just want to reiterate again, this bill has already severely cut the EPA's main operating account by $92 million. Already tonight, amendments have cut it another $29 million. This agency is fundamental. The protection that they do is critical. This account funds programs that are important to us on both sides of the aisle.

No one disagrees that it is important to fund the disastrous wildfires that have taken over in our country, and we very much understand those challenges, but this amendment is irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, again, I must oppose this amendment because it continues to take more money from the already-starved EPA. The EPA's main operating account was cut by $92 million in the bill. With the last amendment that just passed, we have cut another $99 million tonight from the EPA account.

We are not arguing that funding for forest and rangeland research is a poor purpose, but it was fully funded in the budget, and it is starting to feel a little bit like we are just seeing amendment after amendment that is a way to starve the EPA.

The EPA is a critical agency. The very air that we breathe, the water that we drink are endangered by the funding and policy decisions that are being made in this bill. The consequences will be felt negatively in communities across the country.

I just cannot support taking money from an underfunded agency and putting it into a program that is already receiving an increase in this bill, so I oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, we certainly support healthy forests. I represent the State of Maine, where we have a tremendous amount of forests and many people who work in the forest products industry, so we respect the value of this research. But it was fully funded in the budget, and this is just another cut to the EPA and will take away from the work that they are able to do to protect our clean air and clean water. I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding the time.

I really want to support this important amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona. It is important because it will strike a section of this bill that will hurt a small group of States, including my State of Maine.

As we all know, the Congress gave the President the right to create a national monument over 100 years ago. Since then, the President has used that authority to create national monuments like Yellowstone, Grand Canyon National Park, and Acadia National Park in my district.

National monuments bring economic benefits to States, and the use of the Antiquities Act has been an important conservation tool for over a century. For my State of Maine, a national monument would bring new visitors to the area and create jobs, not just in the immediate region, but throughout the State.

For example, we already have a national park in Maine, Acadia National Park. Acadia started out as a national monument 100 years ago this very month, and it brings about 3 million visitors a year to the region.

Mr. Chair, this bill has very problematic language in that it will block the creation of national monuments, even in areas where one might be supported by our local communities. We need to strip this provision out of the underlying bill.

I urge my colleagues to strongly support the Grijalva amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source