Chellie Pingree

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, the Endangered Species Act is the Nation's principle conservation law whose ultimate goals include preventing the extinction of species and providing for their recovery. On June 4, 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service announced a plan to improve and strengthen implementation of the Endangered Species Act to address 21st century conservation challenges. These agencies are proposing to revise three final rules issued in 2019 under the previous administration that do not adequately guide the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The proposed revisions are intended to improve and clarify the interagency consultation processes; listing, delisting, and reclassification decisions; and designation of critical habitat. Why would anyone object to making regulations clearer, more straightforward, or improving implementation of the Endangered Species Act? The Services also proposed to reinstate the 4(d) blanket rule options for protecting and conserving threatened species. Remember, Mr. Chair, providing a suite of protections for threatened species will help it avoid becoming an endangered species. These proposed rules are now subject to public review and comment, and the Services will carefully consider the comments they receive before finalizing any changes. The proposed revisions do not alter the standards for making listing and delisting decisions, nor will they automatically lead to an increase or decrease in the total amount or area of critical habitat that is designated. These decisions will still depend on the Services using the best scientific information available. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to consider how these revisions will make ESA regulations more consistent and efficient, and to reject this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, we are now only 15 days away from a government shutdown, and instead of focusing on keeping the government open, we are working on a bill that is going nowhere. The draconian cuts proposed in this bill violate the agreement reached by former Speaker McCarthy and President Biden and that were memorialized in statute in Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. We would not be teetering on the brink of a government shutdown if my Republican colleagues had held up their end of the bargain. We are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, such as the drought, flooding, severe storm, and wildfire events we are experiencing. As of October 10, the United States has experienced 24 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each. This is a new record. This amendment seeks to prohibit funding for the Bureau of Land Management to finalize, implement, or enforce a Draft Resource Management Plan and draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that would remove 1.6 million acres of public lands in Colorado from future oil and gas leasing. These lands do not have high oil and gas potential, and BLM's actions would protect the important wildlife habitat, recreation areas, and water resources, as well as reduce emissions and the impacts of climate change. Not investing in strategies that minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change and instead paying billions in disaster relief shows my Republican colleagues are not thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer. Our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change and making our Nation stronger, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy rider that sadly shows extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law. The proposed rule on fluid mineral leases and the leasing process aims to enhance the administration of oil and gas-related activities on America's public lands and reflects provisions in recently enacted laws that modify aspects of the Federal onshore oil and gas program whose regulations have not been updated since 1988. However, this amendment seeks to prohibit that. Once again, my Republican colleagues are disregarding the law. This amendment circumvents the rigorous process that is in place to update outdated regulations, which includes opportunities for public input, protects the fiscal interests of the American public, and ensures proper stewardship of public lands and resources for the benefit of future generations. The Government Accountability Office and the Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General have conducted audits of the BLM's Federal onshore oil and gas program and highlighted weaknesses that BLM needs to correct to ensure the American public receives a fair return from oil and gas activities on public lands. I do not understand why my Republican colleagues would seek to undermine the efforts that address those weaknesses and protect the American public. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment to protect the fiscal interests of the American public and our natural resources so future generations benefit from a world with healthy ecosystems and robust biodiversity. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would block the Department of the Interior from its Bicycle Subsidy Benefit Program, which encourages Federal employees to use bicycles to commute to the office. Not unlike many wellness programs that are available in the public and private sector, this is a good idea for the fresh air, for personal health, for a whole host of reasons. It is also good for the environment. More of us should be on bicycles instead of occupying a car to commute back and forth to work. The Department created this program in response to a 1993 law in which Congress authorizes each agency head to establish a program to encourage employees to use means other than single-occupancy motor vehicles to commute to and from work. It is a governmentwide program, and this amendment unfairly targets Interior employees. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to treat all employees fairly and reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from hiring scientists using its title 42 authority. Title 42 authority is a flexible hiring mechanism that allows agencies to attract and retain staff with outstanding scientific, technical, and clinical skills. The authority is used by the EPA, CDC, NIH, and other agencies that require candidates to have specialized degrees in areas such as medicine, science, and engineering. It is not always easy for the Federal Government to attract high- level professionals who have invested many years in school and can easily make more in private practice or even in academia. That is why the Federal Government allows these agencies to provide some additional funding to retain or recruit these employees. Mr. Chair, I am dismayed that the gentleman does not believe such highly specialized employees deserve title 42 recognition. With our Nation facing crises like COVID and climate change, we should be investing in our scientists. It is a shortsighted amendment that unfairly attacks Federal employees who devote their lives to public service. Mr. Chair, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the chair of the committee.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE

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

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.

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. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.