Chellie Pingree

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, since December 18, 2023, my home State of Maine has endured a barrage of devastating storms causing severe flooding, power outages, and millions of dollars in damages. The sheer destruction that these storms have done to our working waterfronts is astonishing. More frequent, intense storms, floods, and rising sea levels mean our communities will continue to be faced with the kind of devastation we have seen in Maine over the past few weeks. At the same time, our working waterfronts are rapidly disappearing nationwide due to heavy development pressure. When fishermen must grapple with the loss of wharves, processing facilities, and other essential infrastructure, in addition to navigating the challenge of climate change, it threatens the very survival of our communities. My and Congressman Wittman's bipartisan Keep America's Waterfronts Working Act will help reverse a worrying trend of shrinking waterfronts while simultaneously protecting jobs and preserving the character of our coastal communities. Congress must act to protect our working waterfronts and the more than 30,000 Mainers and 2.3 million Americans who rely on marine- related industries for their livelihoods. This is bigger than any of us.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, Mr. Grijalva, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chair, this bill does nothing to address the immigration crisis facing our Nation. It does not help New York City, and it doesn't help the asylum seekers. I represent Portland, Maine, which, like New York, has welcomed an influx of asylum seekers this year. Portland has also struggled to find sufficient housing for our new neighbors. If Republicans are serious about getting asylum seekers out of shelters, then we should be debating my amendment to replace this misguided bill with my plan to get asylum seekers to work faster. Currently, asylum seekers must wait at least 6 months before they are eligible to receive work authorization. The bipartisan Asylum Seeker Work Authorization Act would cut this waiting time to 30 days, allowing asylum seekers to get to work faster and no longer rely on social safety net programs to survive. I have spoken to countless asylum seekers who are anxious to get to work and start supporting themselves and their families and contribute to their communities. We just need to get out of their way. I have also heard from employers from across the country who would jump at the chance to hire asylum seekers. At present, there are 9.5 million job openings in the United States and only 6.5 million unemployed workers. That leaves a gap of 3 million job openings that businesses need asylum seekers to fill. That is why business groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce have endorsed my bill. My commonsense proposal would make no changes to the asylum process. It would simply reduce the amount of time that asylum seekers are barred from filling critical job openings. As President Reagan once said, immigrants are one of the most important sources of America's greatness. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to join me in supporting this commonsense, bipartisan solution.

Ms. PINGREE

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

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, in recent years, Democrats have made historic investments in environmental justice, and the EPA has already put those dollars to good use. I think it is unfortunate that my colleagues across the aisle continue to attack good government programs. Environmental justice, just to explain this, ensures that all Americans receive the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards. It is particularly important in rural communities, like the one I represent and like the one I imagine my colleague represents. Many of these rural communities are in the very districts my colleagues across the aisle are representing. Rural communities and low-income communities have long been targeted by corporations, regulatory agencies, and local planning and zoning boards when siting polluting facilities. Let me give you a list of the kinds of things we are talking about here: landfills, waste transfer stations, incinerators, garbage dumps, diesel bus and truck garages, auto body shops, smokestack industries, industrial hog and chicken processors, oil refineries, chemical manufacturers, and radioactive waste storage areas. Because of this, these communities typically have lower property values, higher health disparities, and shorter lifespans. We are not talking about something trivial here. We are talking about serious concerns about your health, the length of your life, and what your property is worth. Why would my colleagues try to defund any effort to improve the lives of people in rural and low-income communities? I am sorry, but it is just another attempt to implement an extreme agenda to attack minority groups at all costs and to return to a time when environmental discrimination was the norm. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support our rural and low-income communities by rejecting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, my colleague on the other side of the aisle said no one ever calls his office and talks about environmental justice. I understand. There are all kinds of words we use in Congress that people rarely talk to us about. They don't talk to us about many of the procedures that we have on the floor, all kinds of things that we do. However, you do have people who call your office to say: Do you know what? I don't want that chemical manufacturer sited next to my house. I am worried about that hog farm that is coming down the road from me. I am worried about the garbage dump. I am worried about the health impacts that my family is experiencing because of where we live. Maybe that didn't happen in your district. I will admit that everything doesn't happen in all of our districts, but there are certainly districts across the country where people are experiencing adverse health impacts. They are experiencing loss of property values because things have been sited in their neighborhood. Maybe my colleague, like so many times here in Congress, just doesn't like the words. I understand. I have heard the term ``environmental justice'' so many times over the last couple of days, as if it is some kind of a discriminatory term, or as if it is some kind of term that they just can't get out of their mouth without feeling angry. We can call it anything we want. We can call it poor siting of messy places. We can call it anything my colleagues want. To make sure that all Americans get a fair deal and that people don't have adverse health impacts, I am willing to change that, just like we can't say ``climate change'' without people getting upset. I am happy, every time we have to discuss this, just to say ``extreme weather.'' Okay, it is extreme weather. It is too much melting. It is too much heat. Too much of things that aren't supposed to happen and going wrong--the hottest summer on record, melting of the polar ice cap, and people who live in communities like mine experiencing the greatest heat in the ocean of any oceans on Earth. These are things that are impacting all of us. I will call it whatever my colleagues like, but we have to do something about it. We have to have equity here, and we have to make sure it is a fair deal for everybody. I heard you didn't like the term ``tree equity.'' I get it. It is one of those things that you just think: What are we talking about now? In fact, urban areas have changed. I am so fortunate that I live in the most forested State in the Nation. I don't know what it is like where my colleague lives. If my colleague lives on top of a hill, maybe there are some trees up there. It makes a huge difference if you are in a part of the city that has trees, if your playgrounds are paved and black and hot in the summer, or if your playgrounds have some trees and shade and some cover so kids can go out and play. We are just talking about kids being able to play on the playground and having a decent life. When we are talking about making sure we plant trees, which often my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say is a really good idea, we go ahead and believe we should plant more trees. Let's not get caught up in the terminology. I think there is a lot we could work on together here and that we believe in together. This amendment to disregard all funding for environmental justice--tell me what you want to call it--that is just not appropriate and is not how we should be funding our environmental laws and not how we should be dealing with climate change. 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, we are only 14 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 that are 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. Now we are here today 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 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 that 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 spending billions in disaster relief shows my Republican colleagues are not thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer. Our economy, our health, our livelihoods, our food security, and our 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 on making our Nation stronger, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, my colleague on the other side of the aisle has proposed this bill that would really slash and burn so many of the important programs that our President has implemented to tackle climate change. Why did he have to do that? I have been in Congress for about 15 years, and I am very fortunate to have served that amount of time. But since I came here, I have been dealing with colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have denied that climate change existed, who have done everything they could to support the oil and gas industry, and who have pushed back on any kind of legislation or funding or anything we could possibly do to deal with climate change, and 15 years later we are in a very serious situation. Now, my colleague is proud of saying that it is a simple truth. It is a simple truth this, it is a simple truth that. Mr. Chair, let me tell you a simple truth. Our planet is warming. We had the hottest summer on record, oceans are heating. The polar ice cap is melting. We are in a very serious state, and most scientists will say that things are happening much faster than we ever anticipated. Here we are having a ridiculous debate about something that is not actually going to go anywhere and a bill that is not going to happen with a party on the other side of the aisle that wants to cut everything we have already done in the last 2 years to support funding for climate change. This is our responsibility to our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Chair, you can say that we are just going to handle it in my small town and my small State. I am just going to explain to you that the planet is warming as an entire entity. Yes, we have to deal with foreign countries, but we also have to make sure that our country is on the right track, that we are investing in renewable energy, that we are not putting our heads in the sand and just ignoring what is going on out there, that all of these things are critically important. We have to stop digging in our heels on every single bill and denying that climate change is real and making all kinds of crazy arguments about well, it is India's fault or China's fault or America can't do it. We can do all these things. We can manufacture the batteries in this country. We can manufacture the solar panels in this country. That is much of what we have done in the last bill, the infrastructure bill, the IRA, investing in our country, and investing in American manufacturing so that this can be homegrown American energy. Every time the gentleman talks about gas prices, he refuses to acknowledge that we are trying to end our dependence on gas and oil, we are trying to make sure we are an energy-independent nation, and, yes, that takes a transition. Nonetheless, at this moment in time, we have to make those investments in the future. I have never seen a party so unwilling to invest in our economic future and to acknowledge what is actually happening in our daily lives and in our families' daily lives. If the gentleman really listened to his constituents or took their calls or listened to what people are saying about their worries about the future, one of their greatest worries is what are we going to do about the warming planet? What are we going to do about the number of days when kids can't go outside and play because it is too hot? What are we going to do about making sure we are looking at our future together? That is not what the gentleman is doing here. He is just denying that climate change exists. He is denying that we have real work ahead of us and we ought to be doing it together. Once again, I oppose this horrible amendment, and 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 the amendment.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, as far as I can tell, this is just another attack on environmental justice. The Council on Environmental Quality is coordinating the development of an ocean justice strategy that will propose equitable and just practices to advance safety, health, and prosperity for communities that are residing near the ocean, the coast, and the Great Lakes. This amendment seeks to block that strategy. Coastlines are home to approximately 40 percent of the United States population. Unfortunately, coastal communities do not share equitably in the benefits provided by the ocean or equitably bear the burden of the negative impacts of human activities associated with the ocean, such as climate change, coastal flooding, and other threats. Environmental justice ensures that all Americans receive the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards. This amendment is just another way to attack minority groups at all costs and return the United States to a time when environmental discrimination was the norm. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, once again, I am kind of caught in this challenge of not understanding exactly what it is that my colleagues don't like about the term ``environmental justice,'' or in this case, ``ocean justice.'' It seems like ``justice'' is a word that we are very comfortable with in a patriotic way that everyone understands. Justice is important in this country. As a Member who represents as much coastline as anybody in here that is extremely impacted by the challenges that are going on in the ocean, such as sea level rise and extreme storms, I have to deal with these questions. I think it is totally appropriate to have a justice strategy in making sure that we have equitability in how we take care of people. If you live in a community where it is underresourced and are impacted by these ocean storms that come at us with total surprise--for example, a winter storm or nor'easter, as we call them, or a hurricane in the southern part of the country, and there aren't resources to rebuild. Perhaps sea level rise is making it so that your community needs to be moved. I was talking last night about the 31 Native communities in Alaska that have to be moved because of sea level rise. If you don't have a justice lens, somebody might turn around and just say: I am sorry. This community isn't valuable enough. You don't have the resources, and your people can't move their own homes. You can't deal with rebuilding the coastal protections, so the money is going somewhere else, to a wealthier community, to someplace where we think people matter more. Those decisions are critical decisions about how we spend our Federal funds, about how we make sure the work we do is equitable. Climate change is having a huge impact on life on the ocean. I do not want to criticize my colleague. I am sure he has put this forward in good faith, but the last I saw, Arkansas doesn't have an ocean, and my colleague is trying to make policy for those of us who represent ocean communities in the East, West, and South throughout this country, the 40 percent of the United States population that lives on the ocean. These are critical strategies for us. We don't need to make the same mistakes that we made in the past with not having a lens of environmental justice. Why in the world would we want to turn back and have discrimination and make bad policy? Why in the world when we are facing some of the most severe crises we have ever seen? We have hurricanes that come on us with no warning, extreme storms in the winter, extreme storms at times of the year we never expected them. I can go on for much more time than I have to talk about what just happened in my own State and the challenges people are worried about, about sea level rise, about the ocean impact of storms. This would take away the opportunity to look forward on that and make sure that our funding is equitable, that all communities are taken care of, that all parts of the country, particularly those rural areas that probably my colleague represents and I represent that are often underresourced are thought about, as well. Again, this is a misguided amendment. People are going after a language that either they just don't want to say or somehow don't believe in or want to bring us back to a time when we had discrimination in our Federal policy and how we spent our Federal funds. It is a misguided amendment. It is a bad idea. Mr. Chair, I oppose it, and 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am deeply concerned about the majority's lack of urgency to fund the government. The continuing resolution expires in less than 3 weeks, but instead of getting to work negotiating with the Senate on a full-year bill, we are wasting time on bills that violate the terms of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. I strongly oppose the fiscal year 2024 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This harmful bill debilitates America's ability to address the climate crisis and hobbles the agencies within its jurisdiction. It slashes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by nearly 40 percent. That is nearly $4 billion less than we appropriated in 2023. It also rescinds more than $7 billion of vital investments provided by the Inflation Reduction Act for the United States to take immediate economy-wide climate action. Climate change has reached a crisis point, and experts agree that we must take bold action to avoid a major, irreversible catastrophe. In addition to the cut proposed by the State-Foreign Operations bill, the Republicans' Interior bill virtually eliminates the greenhouse gas reduction fund, which was established by the Inflation Reduction Act to mitigate the costs of climate pollution through investment in low-and zero-emission technologies. The damage inflicted by this bill extends far beyond climate change. The bill wipes out the environmental justice program and cuts $1.4 billion from the environmental and climate justice grants made possible through the Inflation Reduction Act. It curtails the progress that has been made to ensure that all people are equally protected from our environmental and health hazards. This 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 enforcement of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which will enable polluters. The cuts in this bill are so severe that even agencies that usually garner bipartisan support are targeted for damaging reductions. Funding for the National Park Service, for example, will be cut by 13 percent. This bill also significantly reduces funding for the arts and humanities agencies. The cuts to the Smithsonian Institution and National Gallery of Art are so deep that they will be forced to reduce 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 they should have access to these museums, but this bill takes that away. The bill also fails our Nation's wildland firefighters. It does not provide any of the funding requested by the administration to support wildland firefighters and their families through better compensation, safe housing, and health and well-being assistance. Without this funding, firefighters will lose the compensation increases first provided in the bipartisan infrastructure law. Sadly, this bill also contains numerous discriminatory riders, as well as an exhaustive list of anti-environment riders that seek to derail any effort to combat climate change, and it undermines clean water and clean air protections. They give an open invitation to exploitive oil, gas, and mineral leasing by blocking environmental regulations and even overriding judicial review. At the same time, the bill suppresses clean energy production. Clean, renewable energy is critical if we are going to save our planet for future generations. The majority of Americans support becoming carbon neutral by 2050, and they support prioritizing the development of renewable energy sources and preserving biodiversity for the benefit of future generations. The austere and irresponsible cuts in this bill do not align with their values. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chair Simpson and Ranking Member DeLauro for their tireless efforts on this committee. As Mr. Simpson mentioned, we don't always agree on everything, but we have a chance to work well together. I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who work tirelessly. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill to protect the world we are leaving to our children and grandchildren. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee and the former chair of this subcommittee.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and the distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee and my good friend.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona.

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

Ms. PINGREE

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