Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment that is offered here today, which would block funding for the implementation of National Ocean Policy.

The National Ocean Policy seeks to improve the coordinated management of our oceans and coasts and to address the most pressing issues facing our oceans, resources, and coastal communities.

In fact, just 2 weeks ago, there were over 100 different ocean users meeting in Massachusetts to help develop New England's ocean plan. This included lobstermen from Maine, my home State; science educators from New Hampshire, fishermen from Massachusetts, clean energy representatives from Rhode Island, and recreational fishermen from Connecticut, all meeting with Federal and State agencies to talk about how to improve their options for their local businesses, build resiliency for coastal communities in the face of extreme weather events, and maintain the health of the ocean that provides us with goods and services we need and enjoy.

The National Ocean Policy does not call for ``zoning'' the ocean. Rather, it is a strategy to increase efficiency by bringing stakeholders together and giving citizens and businesses a voice in the decisionmaking process. This policy provides a way for the Federal Government to hear from and to coordinate activities with States, communities, and business owners.

Many State and local interests are eager to coordinate with the Federal Government, and this policy is already helping to make that happen.

Let's be clear. The policy is really about helping agencies like NOAA fisheries work more closely with fishermen and the Navy to coordinate with port communities. Why should we consider prohibiting these critically important relationships between businesses, States, and Federal interests?

The National Ocean Policy helps to ensure that our resources, our culture, our history, and the economic vitality of our communities are fully considered in the decisions concerning our oceans.

I urge my colleagues to join me, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his articulate thoughts and for reinforcing what those of us in coastal communities truly believe.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one more time that this is critically important policy for our country. I am fortunate to represent a State that has some of the highest level of shoreline of any State in the Nation. We have fishermen. We have economic interests on the shore. Everyday, I hear from my constituents who are deeply concerned about the changes that we are facing, whether it is the sea level rising, changing in the fisheries, loss of species, economic issues involving our coastlines, working waterfront--these are serious issues. This represents people's livelihoods. Coastal communities, businesses, our economic interests are here at stake. I can't imagine the idea that we would move backward in National Ocean Policy and that we would lose the opportunity to coordinate on these critical interests, that we would do anything that would endanger the economic development and the economic and cultural future of our communities, our fisheries, and so many businesses that States like mine are completely dependent on.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and recognize that we have severe issues ahead of us and we have a lot of work to do.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, this amendment blocks funding for the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and Validation program. This is climate science denial at its worst.

The world's top scientific institutions are all telling us that we have a rapidly closing window to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts of climate change cannot be avoided.

So far, the world has already warmed by 0.8 degrees Celsius, and we are already seeing the effects of climate change. Most scientists agree that 2 degrees Celsius is the maximum amount we can warm without really dangerous effects, although many scientists now believe that even 2 degrees is far too much, given the effects we are already seeing. But absent dramatic action, we are on track to warm 4 to 6 degrees Celsius by mid-century. That is more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

The International Energy Agency has concluded that if the world does not take action to reduce carbon pollution by 2017--just 3 years from now--then it will be virtually impossible to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

How do we know all this? There are multiple lines of evidence, including direct measurements. But scientists also use sophisticated computer models of how the atmosphere and oceans work and how they respond to different atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases.

For projection of future emissions and their impacts, scientists have made numerous advances by collaborating across academic fields, including climatology, chemistry, biology, economics, energy dynamics, agriculture, scenario building, and risk management.

These projections are critical as they provide guideposts to understanding how quickly and how steeply the world needs to cut carbon pollution in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The goal of the DOE's climate model development and validation program is to further improve the reliability of climate models and equip policymakers and citizens with tools to predict the current and future effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, extreme weather events, and drought.

Mr. Gosar's amendment scraps this program. It says no to enhancing the reliability of our climate models. It says no to improving our understanding of how the climate is changing. It says no to informing policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate change. I think that is absolutely irresponsible.

The amazing thing is that the base bill already zeros out the funding for this program; but, apparently, that isn't enough to satisfy the Republicans' climate denial.

So Mr. Gosar has offered this amendment to just reiterate the point that the House Republicans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence about climate change. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source