Chellie Pingree

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, to close, I appreciate the words of Mr. Simpson, and I appreciate his acknowledgment that it is the rural communities, whether in his State of Idaho or my State of Maine, where there are so many communities that don't have the benefit of the private funding, they don't have the benefit of wealthy parents who can maybe afford to pay for their children's music and arts education. These are communities that desperately depend on this money. I also want to say that while there is a lot of economic growth going on in the arts industry, that it is a huge contributor, that many of these venues--particularly the small ones--were the first to have to close their doors during the pandemic and the last to open, and many haven't recovered. Many people who work in the arts industry, many artists themselves are still struggling to get back on their feet. That just makes this funding even more critically important. This is a great way to make sure that everyone in America has the great educational benefit that all young people should have in arts and music and developing that level of creativity and curiosity and the so many wonderful educational benefits that we know come from having that education in the arts. This makes sure that it is available to everybody. We are already facing a cut in this bill. We are going from $207 million--which was never enough; it ought to be at least a dollar per person--down to $186 million. This cut has already been taken. We don't need to do any more. Certainly, eliminating it would be a travesty. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I would just reiterate that I oppose this amendment that would defund the National Endowment for the Humanities. I thank the chair for his eloquent remarks about the importance of it in Idaho. Idaho and Maine have a lot in common. Our potatoes are so much better, but other than that, we really could see eye to eye on so many issues. Sorry, I am sure their potatoes are perfectly fine. This misguided amendment would significantly hinder support for high- quality projects and programs that reach every single State and territory and benefit millions of Americans. NEH is a very unique source of funding for a wide range of local, nonprofit institutions and organizations across the country. This money goes to our States and our local organizations. These grants strengthen teaching and learning in the schools and colleges. They 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. My colleague on the other side of the aisle who proposed this amendment says he doesn't really see the value of it and goes about to disregard some of the programs that are being funded through this. The fact is that sometimes we need to use literature, history, or the arts to talk about difficult topics. You may not think it is important for us to talk about climate change but, in fact, millions of young people, in fact millions of people in this country, are very worried about that and want to talk about it and think about how we can come with very diverse ideas to a solution that works for all of us. The same with our diversity and equity issues. These are tough topics, and my colleague on the other side of the aisle would just have them eliminated, sweep them under the rug. Yet, we have the opportunity to use our great literature and the history of this country and the lessons that we have learned to have those conversations. I don't know what planet this amendment comes from; someplace where these issues aren't important. Here they are very important. These programs are used by American veterans, by American senior citizens, and young people in our schools. They are so widely used in large and small communities, and they are good investments in our communities. These awards stimulate significant participation and commitment by local and private partners. They generate more money to do exactly what we are doing, so we should be doing more for the NEH, not less. Mr. Chair, I oppose this misguided amendment.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is one more controversial poison pill rider that sadly shows that the extreme Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law. In 2012, before the Bush tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office showed revenues exceeding primary spending for the next 65 years and that debt as a percent of GDP would decline indefinitely. Since then, tax cut extensions and the Trump tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt to date, and their cost will increase enough over time to account for the entire long-term growth in debt ratio. Remember, those benefits are disproportionately enjoyed by the wealthy. If we want to truly protect the American taxpayer, we should be marking up bills at the levels agreed to between the President and Speaker McCarthy and signed into law in the Fiscal Responsibility Act rather than bringing the government to the verge of a shutdown and now marking up bills that just don't just break the deal but obliterate it and cut crucial domestic investments. Let's get serious about passing bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit all funds to the United States Board on Geographic Names. 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 with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, and more than 50 nations have some type of national names authority. My Republican colleagues should be focused on creating bills that will garner bipartisan support and become law, not prohibiting funding for a board that helps surveyors, 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. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am not an authority on this, but my understanding is that the Federal Government could not rename a town in a State. The Federal Government has authority on public lands on names that are related to public property. I am very pleased that we have Secretary Deb Haaland as the Secretary of Interior right now, and I respect the fact that we have someone, for the first time ever, who is a member of a Tribe. Secretary Haaland has made a statement that using the word ``squaw'' is offensive to Native American Tribes, and I fully agree with her, and many people in my own State agree with her and have changed those names, but, in this particular case, I don't believe that the Department of the Interior can arbitrarily rename a town in any State in the Nation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the use of any Federal funds to establish or modify any national monuments under the Antiquities Act within Colusa County, California. Now, I am very sorry that my colleague on the other side of the aisle feels this way. I appreciate being able to serve on the Agriculture Committee with him. We often have areas on agreement, but on this, we disagree. The Antiquities Act provides the President with the authority to designate national monuments in order to protect the objects of historic or scientific interest. This amendment inappropriately restricts the President's ability to declare a national monument in specific parts of the country. Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have used this authority to increase the protection of special Federal lands. In our State, we are particularly pleased that a previous President declared the Katahdin Woods and Waters as a national monument. And we are very glad about the way it has been managed and the fact that it is an important resource to our State. This bill would go 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 yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would block New York City from completing the terms of its lease agreement with the National Park Service, and it offers no solution for those seeking refuge. This amendment would put up yet another obstacle for the residents of New York City as they try to address this unique challenge. We should be looking for ways to help both residents of the city and the migrants as they navigate the often complicated and lengthy immigration process. I know a little something about this challenge the cities are facing because while I don't represent New York City, I represent Portland, Maine, and other cities in Maine that have had a large influx of asylees coming to our State. Now, we are a very welcoming State, but we have some of the same challenges with finding sufficient housing for people while they are navigating this difficult process of asylum seeking. Now let's just remember, we are a welcoming nation. Asylum seekers are coming from war-torn countries, from political challenges, and the process of seeking asylum can take a very long time. In my State, we have some of the same challenges trying to find sufficient housing. I want to say that we can't forget the fact that, again, we are a welcoming nation. We are a welcoming State, and we are a nation of immigrants. I don't know about my colleague across the aisle, but I am very fortunate that my grandfather had the opportunity to come to this country. And that allowed my family to be a part of the American Dream. So many of the people who are coming here today are leaving, as I said, difficult political situations, war-torn nations, with real challenges to get here. Our immigration process is lengthy. They are, for the most part, legal asylum seekers. They need to go through a long court process. If, in fact, she really wanted to do something that would significantly change the amount of time that people have to be in shelters or in housing, perhaps--I know it is on another bill--she could support my bill to reduce the amount of time that asylum seekers have to wait to get their work permits so that they could more rapidly go to work, so that they weren't waiting in shelters, in tents, in other places. I don't know about your State, but in mine our chamber of commerce is constantly asking for more workers. We are constantly behind in having sufficient people to do the work. So to say that we do not want to welcome these people who come from war-torn nations and difficult political situations, and that we don't want to find a way to accommodate them, we should be looking for ways to speed up the process to make sure that people can go to work, and so that they can make sure that they can move forward and become those extremely responsible and hardworking members of American society that they choose to be. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am very sorry. I fully sympathize with the city of New York and the many challenges they are facing in managing this influx of people. As I have said, I have had numerous conversations, whether it is the mayor of my own city of Portland or the city council or the many people who are working hard in social service agencies to make sure that we continue to be a welcoming country; that the asylum seekers who are legally in our country but waiting for the long process of their asylum application to be approved or denied, to get through that process, that they require housing. I will just say a couple of things. I am sorry also that New York City recently had to experience the foot of water, but I encourage my colleagues to stop opposing measures to reduce the impact of climate change. Once again, they are turning their head at the things that are going to continue to happen more and more to some of our biggest cities in the country and rural areas, as well. I also recommend that people don't have to stay in shelters for so long if we would only let them go to work. We have a provision for asylum seekers to get a work permit, but right now it takes 180 days. Why not just shorten it down to 30 days. When you are concerned about the cost of this and the cost of people going to work, we can make sure they go to work. I have talked to so many asylum seekers and their families. They are so anxious to go to work, and we have a worker shortage. This is one thing it seems like we could agree upon on both sides of the aisle. I have no idea if you block this particular park in New York City, what you are going to do to solve this problem. This seems to me like just a mean-spirited attempt to try to turn away people who have nowhere else to turn, who are anxious to become workers in our society, and who need to go through a lengthy process. We could shorten that process. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would allow those who pollute the Chesapeake Bay to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency's water quality standards. Restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed continues to be a priority. The EPA established mandatory water quality standards, and Congress has approved over $1 billion for the Chesapeake Bay program to help States, localities, and businesses meet those standards. This amendment would jeopardize that funding and have devastating effects on the health of the bay. This amendment is not about the well-being of Virginia, Maryland, and the surrounding States. It is about the fact that some industrial operators don't think they should be responsible for controlling the pollution they dump into our rivers and streams across the country. The courts have sided with the EPA on this matter. For more than 35 years, the regional partnership created through the Chesapeake Bay program has sought to restore and protect the Nation's largest and most productive estuary. This amendment would undermine decades of work and have lasting damaging effects to the health of the bay and the economy that it supports. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and 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, nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history. 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 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. We can have a legitimate debate on how to best manage our border and how to handle these issues, but that belongs in the Homeland Security bill and not here under this and not talking about the Endangered Species Act. 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. Historical range for these species was throughout the mainstem Rio Grande and select major tributaries in Texas and Mexico but today have been reduced to a single population that occupies only a fraction of this area. 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 this species. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and protect vulnerable species 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 bar the use of any Federal funds to create national monuments under the Antiquities Act in Malheur County, Oregon. 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 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 this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is petty and punitive. Rather than pursuing grudges against public servants and spewing inaccurate and disrespectful information, my colleagues across the aisle should focus their energy on negotiating with the Senate on a bill to fund the government. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this 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.