Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2025
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, first, I thank the chair of this committee. I appreciate the chance to work with him. We have a good working relationship, and I always enjoy the time that we spend together in the committee.
I also thank Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro for her tireless efforts on this committee and the chair of the committee and the staff on both sides of the aisle for the work that they have put into this bill.
As ranking member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am deeply concerned that the majority has once again put forward an Interior appropriations bill that debilitates America's ability to address the climate crisis, and it hobbles the agencies within its jurisdiction.
Climate change is a clear and present danger. Experts agree that we must take bold action to avoid a major, irreversible catastrophe. I am greatly disappointed and frustrated by the bill before us that completely disregards the reality of a warming planet and ignores the need for us to do more, not less.
As the ``Fifth National Climate Assessment'' confirms, the effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States. With that understanding, cutting funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by $1.8 billion, or 20 percent, is irresponsible and severely impacts needed investments in environmental justice, enforcement, and climate change.
If we are going to preserve the health of our environment and our economic well-being, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase our efforts to respond to and mitigate against harmful climate impacts.
This bill also curtails the progress that has been made to ensure that all people are equally protected from environmental and health hazards. The 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 land management agencies. The National Park Service alone is cut by $210 million. This cut will mean fewer park rangers to protect and preserve the parks' natural and cultural resources and will negatively impact on the visitor experience.
Funding for cultural institutions, such as the Smithsonian and National Gallery of Art, is also significantly reduced, and the Smithsonian may be forced to consider reducing 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 that they should have access to these museums, but this bill could take that away.
The arts have incredible value as a positive tool for economic development, education, and community building, and I will strenuously oppose these cuts in the final spending agreement.
There are areas of bipartisanship, though, and I commend Chairman Simpson's work on wildland fire. The bill includes authorizing language and funding necessary for the administration to carry out its permanent pay reforms for Federal wildland firefighters. This is something we agree on, and I am pleased the bill addresses this important issue.
I am also proud of our work to address treaty and trust obligations on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, though, once again, House Republicans have loaded up the bill with widely unpopular policy riders. This year, they have included a whopping 92 poison pill riders that cripple environmental protection, undermine climate change policies, and add to the national deficit.
A majority of Americans support the United States taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050, and they support taking responsibility for future generations. The austere and irresponsible cuts in this bill do not align with America's values. We need to rise to this challenge and not squander the opportunity to make the planet better for our children and grandchildren.
Madam Chair, I oppose the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I oppose this bill because it contains 92 poison pill riders that cripple environmental protection, undermine climate change policies, add to the national debt, and include discriminatory riders targeting millions of American citizens that have already proven so divisive in earlier markups.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would strike these 92 poison pill riders.
The riders in this bill give an open invitation to exploitative oil, gas, and mineral leasing and block rules that protect our public lands and resources for our children and grandchildren.
It is our job as legislators to preserve pristine water and undisturbed arctic landscapes and save iconic species and apex predators, which maintain healthy ecosystems that benefit us all.
I am strongly opposed to any effort to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community or prevent flying a flag that is chosen to reflect the full history, culture, and people of this great country.
This bill is the latest in a string of appropriations bills that create divisions in our society instead of fostering collaboration to address challenges, like climate change, that impact all of us.
If my Republican colleagues hope to have a bill that is not dead on arrival in the Senate, they would strike these egregious riders.
Madam Chair, I include in the Record the text of the amendment.
Ms. Pingree moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8998 to the Committee on Appropriations with the following amendment:
Strike sections 116, 117, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 430, 431, 434, 435, 436, 440, 441, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, and 496.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history, and 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 principal conservation law, and it 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. 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. Human activities that are threatening and diminishing animal habitats, polluting nature, and accelerating global warming are driving species to extinction.
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 undercut the service's ability to work collaboratively with Tribes, other Federal agencies, States, local communities, and landowners to conserve the species.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and protect vulnerable species so that future generations benefit from a world with healthy ecosystems and robust biodiversity.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
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 July 9, the United States has experienced 15 confirmed weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each. That is 15 events over $1 billion this year alone by July. As we all know, Hurricane Beryl made landfall in Texas on July 8, and we know more storms will follow this year.
This amendment seeks to block the Fish and Wildlife Service from working with willing sellers to expand conservation of the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge through fee title and easement acquisitions. Investment in and expansion of the National Wildlife Refuge System follows on to the Service's work with partners to identify a conservation strategy and limited acquisition boundary that will support sandhill crane, pronghorn, and the lesser prairie-chicken, as well as a full suite of other wildlife that relies on grassland and wetland habitat types.
This plan is a critical step in protecting the future of the Southern High Plains region in New Mexico and Texas for iconic species. This area is also important to conserve for related benefits, like clean water filtration and carbon sequestration, which are essential to environmental and human well-being. Our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change and making our Nation stronger.
Madam Chair, 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, this amendment would prohibit funding for the establishment of any national monument in Malheur County.
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 the protection of special Federal lands.
This amendment inappropriately restricts the President's ability to declare a national monument 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. Congress should not stand in the way of these achievements.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 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, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment, and I am sorry to tell my good friend from Oklahoma that I oppose her on this misguided amendment.
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. We should not defund or block the Smithsonian from holding LGBTQIA+ events and restricting program and content development when we know the Smithsonian is committed to broadly sharing information so parents can make decisions about what is appropriate content for their children.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I will remind the body, again, that I strongly oppose this amendment. One of our greatest strengths as a Nation is our diversity.
The events that my colleague on the other side of the aisle was referring to were all held during Pride Month. It is an extremely important activity during that month to talk about the importance of our diversity and that America is not a singular experience. We represent a whole variety of people.
I think that any kind of restriction on the content or programming of the art that goes on in the Smithsonian is a terrible, slippery slope. We have seen this happen at other times in our country. Some of us are either old enough or have a memory of Edwin Meese when he was the Attorney General and decided to drape the statues in the Capitol and spent thousands of dollars because he was deciding what was culturally appropriate or what should be going on.
The fact is these are all widely advertised programs that parents can make decisions about. I don't think we should do anything to restrict the content, the art, or the programming at the Smithsonian.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to 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, 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. 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. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, this amendment, once again, is petty and punitive. I don't think this is the appropriate place to pursue grudges against hardworking public servants who we ask to do an extremely important job in Washington.
Let me just say this. This is a use of the Holman rule in a way to-- just talking about my colleague on the other side of the aisle--object to the work that is going on related to climate change.
This bill is going to be full of amendments from people who either don't believe in climate change, don't think we should invest in it, or aren't willing to think about the future.
It is our job to make sure that we are protecting the future of this planet, of this country, of our economy, of the people who live in the United States, and the future of our children and grandchildren.
We are going to hear a litany of opposition through amendments, amendments like these, from people who don't believe that we are having the hottest summer on record, who aren't paying attention to the extreme floods and to the storms that are impacting us, to the damage it has already done to the economy, to the billions of dollars we are already spending, and who are going to use any means possible to block the work we are doing to fight climate change.
I oppose this amendment. I am going to continue to oppose these amendments that are really just another way to deny that climate changes exists and that we have a responsibility to work on it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, once again, I will say that we are going to have a litany of amendments from people who don't believe in climate change no matter what they say, no matter how many times people on the other side of the aisle say, oh, no, no, I really want clean air and clean water, but I don't want to do the hard work that has to be done.
To call these policies extremist Green New Deal policies is just a way to dismiss that we have a serious problem before us.
We have serious work to do. It is our responsibility to protect the planet for future generations to make sure that we can continue to live and exist on this planet.
Madam Chair, I reject 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, this amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy that sadly shows that extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM drafted a proposed draft resource management plan and draft supplemental environmental impact statement for the Colorado River Valley field office and Grand Junction field office. This plan is an updated, comprehensive, and environmentally advocate framework for managing uses of these public lands and resources. Sadly, this amendment seeks to block that plan.
We are here to protect the welfare of the American public and preserve our public lands and resources for future generations. Once again, my Republican colleagues are disregarding the law and trying to circumvent the rigorous process that is in place to update resource management plans. The amendment also nullifies the public comments that have been collected by legislating the outcome.
We cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change we are experiencing as 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 to focus instead on addressing climate change and being good stewards of our public lands and resources for the benefit of future generations.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I just want to say one thing about my colleague's amendment. She is making the case for the fact that we have to continue to drill for oil or natural gas in Colorado, and I understand the concerns that people have when the economy changes. I can imagine how difficult it is when people have to look at new opportunities as opposed to continuing the careers that they have always done.
However, the reason we are here addressing this and the reason any changes would be made at a Federal level are because we are facing catastrophic climate change. The scientists have told us we have no time left to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, and yet my colleague is talking about how we need to bring more fossil fuels back into our energy stream.
We have made incredible strides with solar power, wind power, and all of the renewable energy we are investing in today. She talks about her role to protect Colorado. Well, my role is to protect the State of Maine. I invite the gentlewoman to come and visit anytime. The ocean in Maine is warming at a rate 99 percent faster than the oceans around the world.
I talked to a fisherman this weekend when I was home, and I asked him how fishing was going this summer as the weather has warmed up and as the ocean has warmed up. We are seeing a serious depletion in the fishing stocks. They can't survive in warmer waters. They migrate to colder waters. They devastate the economy of our fishermen.
If the gentlewoman wants to preserve the economy in her State, then it is important to think about renewable energy and ways to make sure that we can support an energy future that works for all of us and not just for her own State's needs.
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. This amendment would prohibit the use of any Federal funds to create national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906 in Montrose, Mesa, Montezuma, San Juan, or Dolores Counties in Colorado.
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.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I reiterate once again that climate change is a serious issue. It is something to be debated with facts and actual information, not just speculation or things heard on the internet.
One of the reasons we passed the Inflation Reduction Act is to bring some of the manufacturing for renewable energy back into the United States, and I strongly support that.
I support all countries making a serious effort to reduce their investment in fossil fuel and their dependence on fossil fuel. That is what we were debating in the last amendment.
This amendment is about national monuments. Again, I reiterate that national monuments and the designation of them has been an important tool for Presidents of both parties. We should not be doing anything that diminishes that opportunity for an administration.
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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, again, is purely an anti- climate messaging amendment. It prohibits funds for section 134 of the Clean Air Act, which is better known as the greenhouse gas reduction fund.
The greenhouse gas reduction fund is a $27 billion investment to mobilize financing and private capital to address the climate crisis, ensure our country's economic competitiveness, and promote energy independence.
Mr. Chair, I note that all of that $27 billion is mandatory spending. This bill does not contain any funding for the greenhouse gas reduction fund. The effect of this amendment is nothing more than anti-climate rhetoric.
We are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impact of climate change. We need to make smart investments that will result in more resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future generations.
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 oppose this amendment, and 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, as my colleague well knows, the Federal Government has a special trust responsibility and legal obligation to provide quality healthcare to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Unfortunately, we have fallen short of providing the funding that is required to overcome the staggering health disparities and address the health crisis in Indian Country.
Healthcare is provided to sovereign and independent nations, and we have no right to discriminate against or dictate the health services they choose to provide.
I am disappointed that my colleague would want to prohibit funding for any healthcare service to American Indians and Alaska Natives because of his own partisan agenda.
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, 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, the National Endowment for the Arts is the Federal agency that funds, promotes, and strengthens the creative capacity of our communities by providing all Americans with diverse opportunities for arts participation. This small but mighty agency supports arts organizations and artists in every congressional district in the country and these investments yield enormous economic benefits.
This amendment would cut the NEA by nearly one-third. That would result in a reduction of an estimated 900 awards. These funds are one- to-one cost-share matched, which means that funding from 56 State and jurisdictional art agencies and 6 regional arts organizations would also be cut by nearly one-third. That would be a reduction of roughly $20 million. This means that there would be nearly one-third cuts across the board to each and every State art agency.
The arts have an incredible value as a positive tool for economic development, education, and community building, and deeply cutting this important agency would cause catastrophic harm.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is incredibly destructive. It would result in a cut to services for active military and veterans by nearly one-third. The NEA has recently expanded its Creative Forces program outside of clinical settings into communities across the country. This would be a huge setback.
In addition to expanding Creative Forces since FY19, the NEA has increased its engagement in rural communities through additional investment in Citizens' Institute on Rural Design, as well as Tribal communities and Tribes, and these would all suffer.
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 rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. This misguided amendment would significantly hinder support for high-quality projects and programs that reach every State and territory and benefit millions of Americans.
The NEH is a unique source of funding for a wide range of local, nonprofit institutions and organizations across the country. These grants strengthen teaching and learning in schools and colleges; 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.
NEH grants are sound investments in our communities. These awards stimulate significant financial participation and commitment by local and private partners. We should be doing more for the NEH, not less.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
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, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars is the official memorial to President Wilson and a nonpartisan forum for tackling global issues through independent research and open dialogue.
In a divisive world, we need more opportunities to listen to and have dialogue with others who may not share our point of view. The Wilson Center is a great resource for policymakers as they confront today's challenges.
I am disappointed my colleague would want to eliminate funding for this important institution.
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, 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, 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 many business leaders agree, that 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 in time where our Nation's diversity was not seen as an asset.
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
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 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 claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, 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.
Climate change has reached a crisis point, and we must take bold action to avoid a major irreversible catastrophe. We must invest in renewable energy if we are to tackle this problem.
This shortsighted amendment does not prepare this Nation to address climate change by prohibiting funds for updating a roadmap for solar energy development across the West that is designed to expand solar energy production and make renewable energy siting and permitting on America's public lands more efficient.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this is my experience: Climate change deniers, the people who want to just support the fossil-fuel industry, continually use misinformation, disinformation, social media memes, all kinds of things to argue their point, but the ultimate challenge here is we have an overdependence on fossil fuels.
The use of fossil fuels is contributing to too much CO
If we care about the future of our planet, if we truly believe that it is our job as elected officials to protect the American public, we can't close our eyes to these impacts of climate change, so arguing about where things are manufactured or how they are disposed is a way of avoiding the fact that we have to move into renewable energy, and that is our challenge today.
Of course, we don't want to use things that are strictly manufactured in China. That is why we passed the IRA, to put more domestic investment in things like solar panels and batteries and the things that we desperately need.
As to this question about end-of-life solar panels, I wholeheartedly agree, we should recycle as much as we possibly can of everything that we are using in this country. Let me just read this little fact about that: ``Waste from end-of-life solar panels presents opportunities to recover valuable materials and create jobs through recycling. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, by 2030 the cumulative value of recoverable raw materials from end-of-life panels globally will be about $450 million, which is equivalent to the cost of raw materials currently needed to produce about 60 million new panels. Diverting solar panels from landfills to recycling saves space in landfills in addition to capturing the value of raw materials.''
I am all in favor of recycling them. That is absolutely something that we can accomplish, and those are the facts, not a social media misinformation/disinformation meme, whatever it is.
Mr. Chair, I wholeheartedly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and 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 is one more controversial poison pill policy rider that sadly shows that extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM drafted the proposed draft resource management plan and environmental impact statement for Rock Springs and provided a 90-day comment period.
This amendment prohibits the BLM from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing an updated, comprehensive, and environmentally adequate framework for managing uses of public lands and resources.
We are here to protect the welfare of the American public and preserve our public lands and resources for future generations. The land considered for protection has low prospects for oil and gas yields and includes natural treasures such as petroglyphs, North America's largest sand dunes, and migration corridors for bighorn sheep, mule deer, and elk.
Once again, my Republican colleagues are disregarding the law and trying to circumvent the rigorous process that is in place to update resource management plans. This amendment also nullifies the public comments that have been collected by legislating the outcome.
We cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change that we are experiencing as 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 being good stewards of our public lands and resources for the benefit of future generations.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. 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, this amendment would block the EPA from operating its Office of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. The EPA established this office to be the primary liaison between rural and agricultural stakeholders and the agency. It works to find practical science-based solutions that protect the environment while ensuring a vibrant and productive agricultural system. Taking away this important resource would put our farmers at a disadvantage. We should be working to increase the coordination in the agriculture community, not stifling it.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I just want to wholeheartedly disagree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle and the premise of this amendment.
I serve on the Agriculture Committee. I have been a farmer much of my life. I represent a tremendous number of farmers, and I come from an agricultural State.
I don't see what benefit it would be to farmers to put them at this level of disadvantage to take away this office that was there to support communication between the EPA and farmers.
I will admit it is not always an easy relationship between farmers and the EPA. Sometimes there are challenges that go on there, certainly with waters of the U.S., which we have debated at length in the Agriculture Committee. I know it is really important for farmers to be heard so that when regulations are made, they serve both our environment and the farmers. You can actually do both.
When I hear people dismissing climate change or calling them ridiculous policies that are enacted by this administration, I think they don't really understand the challenges that farmers are facing today. Farmers are the first ones impacted by the adverse weather we have, whether it is extreme drought or extreme cold.
In my State of Maine, we have had unusual temperatures, cold weather late into the spring that has frozen the blossoms on our fruit trees or drought in the middle of the summer when it wasn't expected, rainy summers where we can't manage all of the water or flooding that impacts our farmers. These things are happening all over our country.
Climate change policies, those things that will mitigate climate change, where farmers can be our partners, which they often are in many of the policies that are implemented through this administration, things that help to sequester more carbon or help farmers to deal with many of the issues that they are challenged by, are critically important to them to make sure that we continue to have farmers during this difficult time.
Also, there are some issues that farmers in my State are dealing with, particularly related to PFAS, this forever chemical that has turned up in the soils of many farms in our States. That is regulated by the EPA. Many of the decisions that have to be made about what is allowable in a vegetable or in our milk or how to remove it from the water or the soil, those are things that go on at the EPA.
To not have this liaison with farmers, many of whom are losing their farms in States like mine and States all over the country because they are contaminated with PFAS from previous flood spreading, not having that liaison so farmers can engage on what the EPA is going to advise and how to work with it, is frankly just a ridiculous idea.
This is a ridiculous amendment. It doesn't speak to the needs of farmers. It is a messaging amendment, once again, to be anti-climate change, antigovernment, and anti-EPA. My colleagues should oppose it. It has no business being before us here today.
Mr. Chair, I recommend people oppose this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. I claim time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
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 the 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 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 in partnership with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies and more than 50 nations have some type of national names authority.
My Republican colleagues should be more focused on creating bills that will garner bipartisan support and become law, not prohibiting funding for a board that helps surveyor, 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.
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, 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. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the EPA from designating certain Michigan counties as being in nonattainment of the 2015 ozone standard.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for contaminants, like ground-level ozone, that are adequate to protect public health, including the health of sensitive groups, such as children and the elderly. These health standards, or NAAQS, must reflect the recent scientific and medical data.
Once EPA sets or revises a NAAQS, EPA uses air-monitoring data recommendations from States to determine which areas meet the standard and those that do not, known as being in nonattainment. States then go to work to develop plans using the most cost-effective strategies to bring nonattainment areas in compliance with the standard.
Allowing a county that exceeds the standard to be considered in attainment doesn't do anything for the families and workers living in those counties who are breathing toxic air. It tells America that there is nothing to see here while they bear the brunt of the environmental hazards.
Contrary to what polluters will have Members believe, being designated as nonattainment does not shut down economies. Businesses have and do continue to operate and expand in nonattainment areas. However, the designation ensures that States and businesses are taking measures to control air pollution and help communities to achieve cleaner, healthier air.
This amendment is a sweetheart deal for just three counties in Michigan. It puts polluters over people, allowing industry to emit more toxic contaminants, and leaving Americans to pay with their own health.
Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can aggravate respiratory systems and trigger asthma attacks. Ozone exposure also increases the risk of premature death from heart or lung disease. More asthma attacks and more respiratory disease mean more medication, more doctors' visits, more trips to the ER, and more hospital admissions. It also means more absences from school and work. All of this is a drag on the economy.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which fails to recognize the serious threat of air pollution and leaves families and children unprotected.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the concerns that my colleague on the other side of the aisle expresses. Representing Maine, we are actually one of those States that receives the bad air of much of the Midwestern States. I am well aware of the concerns that the gentleman is expressing.
It actually sounds like my colleague on the other side of the aisle is in favor of the Good Neighbor Authority, which the Supreme Court recently pushed back on, which would, in fact, do more to penalize the perpetrators.
I agree with the gentleman. We should penalize polluters, but I will say that much of the agenda on the other side of the aisle has been to do the opposite. I hope we can continue fighting to make sure we are pointing fingers at exactly the sources of that pollution and not allowing random counties to be penalized or whole States like mine, who often experience bad air from other States.
I urge opposition to this amendment. The fact is that these three counties are out of attainment. Those people who live in those counties need a remedy and need to have cleaner air.
Mr. Chair, I urge opposition, 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 seeks to reduce the Fish and Wildlife Service back to fiscal year 2021 levels. The House-based bill already reduces the Service's funding by $144 million, or 8 percent below the enacted level, which would make it impossible for that critically important agency to function.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well, and 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, nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history, and 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 a protection 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. 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 those determinations as well as the role of public input. The primary factor influencing the viability of the Texas kangaroo rat is habitat loss and conversion, largely related to historic land use changes.
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 the species.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and protect the vulnerable species so future generations can benefit from a world with healthy ecosystems and robust biodiversity.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source