Chellie Pingree

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, once again, I would say I understand we have disagreements on energy policy, and I understand that my colleagues often like an opportunity to criticize the Biden administration because they don't agree with their stand on energy policy. I just want to be clear. Again, the Biden administration didn't do this, as he said in his remarks and I clarified. This was an NGO that sued to have this happen, but NOAA stated it is not proceeding with the rulemaking at this time. The Biden administration is not doing this. It is not slowing down boats. It is not stopping boats at night. None of the things that he said were actually true. In fact, they have backed off on this. I know we all have moments in our own State. I represent a coastal State. We have all kinds of disagreements on lawsuits that are filed against current practices, but that didn't happen. Could he just withdraw this? Because he has got an amendment about something that isn't happening. Believe me, we have got enough disagreement and misinformation and there are enough harmful riders in this bill. I would respectfully request that he just withdraw this and acknowledge that none of this actually happened. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's thoughts. I continue to disagree. I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, this amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy rider that sadly shows that the Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law. The amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior from removing any monument on land under their jurisdiction. There can be many reasons a monument would need to be removed, such as the health and safety of visitors and staff. This amendment provides no latitude for the Department to steward the land and resources they are responsible for. In 15 days, the government will shut down, yet we are spending time on a bill that will never become law and on this superfluous partisan poison pill rider. We should be focused on creating a bipartisan bill that abides by the agreement reached in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. Let's do the job we were elected to do, ensure the American people receive the benefits and services they are entitled to. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System identifies and characterizes the health hazards of chemicals found in the environment in an impartial manner. IRIS assessments are critical in understanding the environmental risks we face. This amendment would deny Americans a valuable tool in understanding the health effects resulting from chronic exposure to chemicals. This includes cancer descriptors that help us better understand which chemicals are most likely to cause cancer. Madam Chair, I support the work done by the EPA. I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the thoughts of the former Secretary of the Interior, and I thank him for his service, but I want to be clear. Let me read this back. There may have been an earlier version of this, but this one says: ``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to remove any monument on land under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.'' Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, just to clear up a couple of things. My colleague mentioned the Founding Fathers. Robert E. Lee was not one of the Founding Fathers. He was a general of the Confederacy. That was in the city of Charlottesville. That wasn't a national monument when that statue was removed. I have to say, I find it rich that the party that has supported book banning in our libraries, rewriting curriculum, and not talking about our history over and over again is the very one that is saying that we have to often keep painful monuments in places where they do damage, where they interfere with people's ability to enjoy the particular area that they are in, and leave it to the Department of the Interior to have that discretion. If we are going to get into talking about book banning and rewriting history, let's have an honest debate about it and talk about the differences between our two parties on this. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I am just sad about this. I really don't understand why my colleague would want to roll back this great program on clean schoolbuses. I just don't understand. I mean, first off, you have to deny that climate change is real in order to say we shouldn't be doing significant things like this, converting our transportation system--which is an enormous part of climate change challenges, converting our transportation system to electric vehicles. We have had this program since the IIJA, which was actually a bipartisan program. Perhaps you didn't vote for it. You may not have agreed with it, but it was a bipartisan bill, and this was in that bill, so this funding is already out there. I have had the good fortune of talking to someone who works in one of the school programs where they have the clean schoolbus program. He couldn't say enough good things about it. He couldn't say enough about how good it has been for their district. Number one, I don't know if you know this about electric vehicles, but your maintenance costs go way down. For most communities who have big schoolbus fleets, they have to have a maintenance barn. They have to have maintenance members who work in there, and this has reduced greatly their costs for maintaining the vehicles because there are not a lot of component parts in an electric vehicle. He also told me that they have a little competition with the bus drivers. Each one is trying to figure out how long can I go on a charge? How does my bus work? They are all very engaged in this process. Also importantly, there are no emissions from this bus. I don't know if you heard me earlier, but I was talking about the high asthma rate in my State. We are one of the top 10 in the country in asthma rates, and that means asthma in kids. So for kids to be able to ride on a bus that has no emissions, it is just that much better for their health and well-being. There are no good reasons to want to eliminate this. We have already funded it. There is no funding in this bill. You are just talking about this as sort of a grudge match against electric schoolbuses, which, frankly, there are more important problems to deal with in this country. We have already funded this. School districts are already implementing this, applying for this. It is reducing their maintenance costs. They feel very good about these buses. I suggest you talk to a school district, maybe one in your own district, your congressional district, and ask them how they feel about this, how it is working for their community. You are opposing something that has gone very well. You are trying to prohibit a program that runs on clear fuel, that reduces the impact schoolbuses have on climate change. We are doing something good for America in this program, good for our schools, good for the health of our kids. There is no possible reason to want to do this, that is why I said it just makes me sad. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I don't remember mentioning social movements or environmental justice, although I do think environmental justice is very important. I was talking about skill training and making sure our youth are prepared for the jobs of the future. I don't anticipate that they can stop storms. That would be Herculean, and I don't think anyone can stop climate change at this point, but I think they can help us deal with catastrophic wildfires, with coastal resilience. We can train people with skills of the future. This is a wonderful opportunity for our young people. I oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, if my colleague is so concerned about the challenges that students are facing in our schools, and I admit many schools are facing challenges because kids have been home during the pandemic, they have had a lot of setbacks, we are in a very difficult time in our world, kids have a lot to worry about, I would suggest that he debates another bill in support of encouraging more funding for the Department of Education. That would be a good place to put his concerns, but I would have to say there is no reason to be concerned about the schoolbuses. In fact, we should be happy about the schoolbuses because we are implementing electrification of our fleet. We are helping the well- being of our students by making sure there are less emissions from those buses, and they can ride on buses with cleaner air. We are reducing the cost of schools who are able to use these electric buses. I am in strong support of making sure that we have more electrification of our schoolbuses. I encourage my colleagues to reject the amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, first I have to say, I am perplexed that anyone would not want to provide good-paying jobs that will help our Nation tackle the climate crisis and build a stronger country. The goal of the American Climate Corps is to put more than 20,000 young people on career pathways in the growing fields of clean energy, conservation, and climate resilience. In launching this effort, President Biden is calling on Tribal, State, and local governments, labor unions, not-for-profit service allies, the private sector, and philanthropy to collaborate with the Federal Government to build on current relationships and expand skills- based training partnerships to ensure our workforce is ready to meet the climate crisis. We have seen the devastation to coastal communities impacted by hurricanes and tropical storms. Why would we not want to train our youth to restore coastal wetlands that can protect communities from storm surges. We know the damage and loss that accompanies wildfires across our Nation. So why would we not want to train youth to manage forests, to improve health, and prevent catastrophic wildfires? We know the power of skills-based training as a tool to expand pathways into good-paying jobs. Let's not deny our youth this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

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 business leaders agree, 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 to a time when our Nation's diversity was not seen as an asset. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.