Chellie Pingree

Ms. PINGREE

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

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, again, I must oppose this amendment because it continues to take more money from the already-starved EPA. The EPA's main operating account was cut by $92 million in the bill. With the last amendment that just passed, we have cut another $99 million tonight from the EPA account. We are not arguing that funding for forest and rangeland research is a poor purpose, but it was fully funded in the budget, and it is starting to feel a little bit like we are just seeing amendment after amendment that is a way to starve the EPA. The EPA is a critical agency. The very air that we breathe, the water that we drink are endangered by the funding and policy decisions that are being made in this bill. The consequences will be felt negatively in communities across the country. I just cannot support taking money from an underfunded agency and putting it into a program that is already receiving an increase in this bill, so I oppose the amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I just want to reiterate again, this bill has already severely cut the EPA's main operating account by $92 million. Already tonight, amendments have cut it another $29 million. This agency is fundamental. The protection that they do is critical. This account funds programs that are important to us on both sides of the aisle. No one disagrees that it is important to fund the disastrous wildfires that have taken over in our country, and we very much understand those challenges, but this amendment is irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I have to strongly oppose this amendment that would take even more money from the already starved EPA. The bill has already severely cut the Environmental Protection Agency's main operating account by $92 million. This would cut it by another $70 million. And so far tonight, we have agreed to another $29 million through amendments. The very air we breathe and the water we drink are endangered by the funding and the policy decisions that are already made in this bill. Their consequences will be felt negatively in communities across this country. I know it is often an easy target for my colleagues across the aisle to cut the EPA, but I do want my colleagues to understand what this amendment would mean if this cut was adopted. The account funds programs that are important to both sides of the aisle, including permitting for construction projects across the country; toxics; risk prevention; part of the successful brownfields program; pesticides licensing, which, as we know, is a critical part of fighting the Zika crisis. In my opinion, this very large cut would be irresponsible, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would eliminate the funding for the EPA Air, Climate, and Energy research program. I think we all know that the Clean Air Act has resulted in one of the most effective public health programs in American history by addressing air quality in the United States. What this amendment would do would be to set back any advances in new technology and new scientific tools that would help protect the American public from harmful exposure to air pollutants which, as we know, can damage our health, causing lung and heart disease, impact our immune, nervous, and reproductive systems, and shorten our lives. Millions of people in America live in counties that do not meet air quality standards for one or more pollutants, and new threats from climate change expand the air quality challenges confronting our society. The energy choices we make clearly influence air quality and climate change. Eliminating EPA funding to research and understand the impacts on air quality from alternative energy sources is, at a minimum, shortsighted. The bill already reduces the EPA by $164 million from the FY 2016 enacted level. I think we have already done enough damage in that particular reduction. For the health and welfare of our citizens, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few points about this amendment. As my colleague has said, this would reduce the funds from EPA operations by $14 million and increase the Inspector General by $10 million. I think we would certainly agree that it would be a good idea to increase the funding for the Inspector General, and we would like to see the other side increase those funds. But we are uncomfortable with the idea of taking the funding from the operating account. This account has already been cut by $92 million, and it would reduce the operating account by $14 million, putting that money over there. This seems like too severe of a cut on top of what has already been done. We don't disagree that the work of the Inspectors General across all agencies in Federal Government are necessary and very important and they do good work. So, once again, I just oppose the shift in funding. I think it would be great if the other side wanted to enhance the funding for the Office of Inspector General, just not through this mechanism. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding the time. I really want to support this important amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona. It is important because it will strike a section of this bill that will hurt a small group of States, including my State of Maine. As we all know, the Congress gave the President the right to create a national monument over 100 years ago. Since then, the President has used that authority to create national monuments like Yellowstone, Grand Canyon National Park, and Acadia National Park in my district. National monuments bring economic benefits to States, and the use of the Antiquities Act has been an important conservation tool for over a century. For my State of Maine, a national monument would bring new visitors to the area and create jobs, not just in the immediate region, but throughout the State. For example, we already have a national park in Maine, Acadia National Park. Acadia started out as a national monument 100 years ago this very month, and it brings about 3 million visitors a year to the region. Mr. Chair, this bill has very problematic language in that it will block the creation of national monuments, even in areas where one might be supported by our local communities. We need to strip this provision out of the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to strongly support the Grijalva amendment.

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, we certainly support healthy forests. I represent the State of Maine, where we have a tremendous amount of forests and many people who work in the forest products industry, so we respect the value of this research. But it was fully funded in the budget, and this is just another cut to the EPA and will take away from the work that they are able to do to protect our clean air and clean water. I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Byrne-Flores amendment.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I disagree with my colleague. I think that the National Ocean Policy is a vital tool that we have to help ensure that our coastal communities and their stakeholders work together and coordinate their ideas and make plans to achieve local goals. I think as a Congress we need to recognize the importance of our oceans and ocean planning. Unfortunately, each year, we come to the floor of this body on various appropriations bills to defend the vital work of the National Ocean Policy. We have debated over 15 riders on this issue in the past two Congresses. Instead, we ought to be talking about the progress that our local communities are making on ocean planning. In New England, we are actually making progress. And this year, we have the New England regional ocean plan to be proud of. No process is perfect, I will give you that, but at least we have begun the discussion. Fisherman, lobstermen, and other community leaders have been included in the development of these voluntary regional ocean plans. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided attempt to stop the National Ocean Policy and the important work it does. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, would you please give me a sense of how much time I have remaining?

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my good friend and colleague.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for once again describing what is a very important policy. I have to disagree with my colleague from Alabama (Mr. Byrne). I do not think that this is Federal top-down. In fact, I think this is better decisionmaking, bottoms-up, not top-down. It gives opportunities for local communities to have an input. I want to unequivocally state that we spend no money on ocean planning. The NOP does not create any Federal regulations or supersede any local or State regulations. But what it does do is it leverages taxpayer dollars to reduce duplication between Federal, State and local agencies, to streamline data collection, and to strengthen public involvement. That is exactly what we want to have happen in our coastal communities. Our oceans and coasts support 3 million ocean-related jobs, generate $360 billion through tourism, development, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, boating, energy, shipping, and other activities. This is a very effective planning tool to reconcile and coordinate those activities. It does not prevent them. And just in closing, I will say that my colleague from Alabama may look at this one way, but I represent the State of Maine, which has a tremendous amount of coastline. I represent about half the coastline off the coast of Maine, and I have also represented many coastal communities prior to coming to Congress as a State legislator. I live on an island. I take a ferry for 1 hour to get home, unlike virtually any other Member of Congress. Everybody in my community is dependent on the ocean. Every island I represent is dependent on the ocean. Every coastal community has to have a working waterfront, fishermen. It has to have tourism, fishing, all of them working together. I don't think that in the State of Maine we don't understand ocean planning. We know our oceans are desperately troubled. They are in danger. They need our attention, and Congress has to pay attention to that. We can't do this in a haphazard way. We have to have it coordinated. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this rider, as we have many, many times, and to support National Ocean Policy. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated public servant who has significantly contributed to Maine and our communities for more than forty years. This July, Neal W. Allen will be retiring as the Executive Director of the Greater Portland Council of Governments after 18 years. In this role, he has led a regional planning organization that provides support to communities across Southern Maine around municipal services, transportation & land use, economic development, sustainability, housing, and many other issues that impact people in their daily lives. At the Council of Governments, Mr. Allen led major initiatives around sound governance of the organization, along with the establishment of its Sustainability Principles. Those Principles opened new opportunities for the region, including a federal HUD Sustainability grant that involved more than 40 partners from Kittery to Brunswick. The Sustainability Principles also formed a basis for the Council's energy planning, electric vehicles initiatives, and designation in the U.S. Commerce Department's Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership. Following service in the Coast Guard during the Vietnam era, Mr. Allen's career in Maine began in the 1970s, as an Assistant City Manager in Portland. Among other contributions to the City, he played a key role in establishing Portland's ambulance service, Medcu, the first of its kind in Maine. He then went on to serve the City through a variety of challenging issues as Acting City Manager and later, as the first Executive Director of the waste management organization that is now named Eco Maine. That program resulted in the closing of numerous open burning landfills and the establishment of a regional system for managing solid waste. Along the way, Mr. Allen served a Governor and U.S. Senator in various roles, and was the co-recipient, along with former Governor Joseph Brennan, of the State of Maine Award in 1983. This is just a small sampling of the many ways that Neal Allen made our region better. This career is reflective of his commitment to public service and to the notion that practical, local collaboration can make a big difference in the daily lives of people in our communities. I doubt that this retirement will be the last word on his contributions to our community. Mr. Speaker, I truly admire Mr. Allen for his long and devoted service to Maine, and would like to thank him for the difference he has made in the lives of Mainers.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this bill, but want to take a moment to recognize the hard work our subcommittee has put into this legislation. I do appreciate the work of Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum on this bill. This bill is critical to our country, and there are so many programs in it that are vital to my constituents in Maine. Programs like the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, are all funded in this bill and all provide vital programs, resources, and research to my State and to the Nation as a whole. Although we worked in a bipartisan fashion to create this bill, at the end of the day, the funding levels are still too low. The bill provides $64 million below the FY 2016 enacted level and $1 billion below the President's budget request. Although I am very glad to see programs for our local arts communities, such as the NEA and NEH, are increased and that programs for our local infrastructure, such as the Clean Water Fund are funded slightly above the President's request, there is not enough money in the bill for our national needs. In particular, the EPA overall is not funded to the levels that we need as a Nation. Back home in Maine, one of the most often cited needs of our communities is for more infrastructure resources. In some towns, that means transportation infrastructure, and in others, it means water and sewer infrastructure. In the past decade where there have been never- ending Federal, State, and local budget cuts, ensuring our communities have clean water is not an easy task. The tragedy in Flint, Michigan, reminded us all of that fact. This year, the State revolving funds programs get an increase in the chairman's bill, and I want to thank him for that. But it is still too much lost time that needs to be made up for in these accounts. The riders in the bill regarding the EPA are an even bigger concern, and would hinder the EPA's ability to regulate things from lead paint, to carbon pollution, to the cleanup of mines. Again, we can do better. Our Nation deserves a better bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago I joined with many of my colleagues here on the House floor to demand a debate on commonsense gun legislation to increase background checks and keep terrorists from buying guns. Despite the fact that the microphones and C-SPAN cameras were turned off, the discussion we held over the next 24 hours was seen and heard by millions of Americans. It was seen and heard because my colleagues and I took out our smartphones, and we took photos and streamed video, and we tweeted. We posted to Facebook and we broadcast on Periscope. We call this Chamber ``the people's House.'' In the time that I have been serving here, there has never been a moment that has felt more like the people's House than that 25 hours. Yet now we hear that some are calling for us to be punished for bringing that debate and discussion to the American people. It is ``behavior unbecoming'' of the House of Representatives, they say. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what my colleagues and I did, and if that is what it takes to get us a vote on bipartisan, commonsense laws to prevent gun violence, I hope we will do it again.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, last week, a few days after my colleagues and I sat down right here in the House to demand action on legislation to reduce gun violence, I went home to Maine. I heard from so many of my constituents who asked: Is something finally going to happen in Washington on this issue? Well, I don't have a crystal ball, and we live in an unpredictable time, so that is a hard question to answer. But it was especially hard to answer last week when the person asking was the daughter of the principal who was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School or the parents of a young woman shot and killed in Maine by a handgun that had been sold without a background check. The question was not just for me; it was for all of us. Will we finally do something to reduce the scourge of gun violence that is sweeping this country? Will we finally do something to limit access to guns by criminals and suspected terrorists? Erica wants to know because her mother was killed by an assault rifle as she protected students at Sandy Hook. Judi and Wayne want to know because their daughter was shot with a handgun while she slept in her apartment. Mr. Speaker, I hope our answer is yes.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 300th birthday of a town in my District. On June 13, 1716, Georgetown was incorporated as the 10th town in the Province of Maine. Located on an island between the mouths of the Kennebec and Sheepscot Rivers, Georgetown has a rich history that goes back far longer than 300 years. For generations, the Abenakis knew the island as a place for good spear fishing. John Parker--to whom many current residents can still trace their lineage--built its first permanent homestead on land he purchased for a hogshead of rum and a few pumpkins in 1649. And its location on the border between what was then New France and New England brought several conflicts during the French and Indian Wars of the 1700s. Thankfully, though, peace did eventually come to Georgetown. Since then, generations of Mainers have made their living there in boatbuilding, fishing, and other trades. And countless visitors have gone there searching for the best of what the Maine coast has to offer. Indeed, with the town's picturesque scenes, wicked good lobster, and hard-working people, that's exactly what they've found. Mr. Speaker, it makes me very proud to represent a community with such a rich history and uniquely Maine character. My congratulations to Georgetown and all its residents on this wonderful occasion--and my best wishes for many more birthdays in the future.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, we should not be here today. We should not have to come to the floor of the House of Representatives to beg the majority party just to debate and vote on commonsense gun legislation that the vast majority of Americans demand. We should not be living in a society where debate and even scientific research about gun violence are stifled and silenced by the majority in Congress, and we should not live in a country where gun violence takes such a toll on our citizens. But here we are, standing up for the millions of Americans who want Congress to do something and honoring the thousands of Americans who have lost their lives to gun violence. Here we are, standing up for our constituents who are tired of the excuses and want to hear a debate and want to see us take action on gun violence. And here we are today to represent the victims. The list is so long: Orlando, San Bernardino, Newton, Fort Hood, Charleston. The list goes on. Nine in a church, 23 in a restaurant, 26 in an elementary school, and now 49 in a nightclub. The victims are men and women, Black and White, rich and poor, old and young. At a McDonald's in California, an 8-month-old baby was killed, along with his mother who was trying to shelter him when a gunman came in and started shooting. At a North Carolina nursing home, a 98-year-old grandmother was killed when a shooter came in and opened fire. Here in the United States, you are 10 times more likely to be killed by a gun than in any other developed Nation in the world. Of the 23 richest and most developed countries in the world, we have, by far, the most gun violence. We have half the population of the other 22, but 90 percent of the women killed by a gun are killed by a gun in the United States. Ninety-one percent of the children under age 14, who are killed by a gun, are killed by a gun in the United States. And if you are a young person in this country, you are 50 times more likely to die of a gun death than in all of those other countries. We have the most guns and we have the most gun violence. Mr. Speaker, we have the NRA. Through fear, intimidation, and misinformation, the NRA has taken control over the debate on guns to such an extent that we cannot even vote in this Chamber on whether we should keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. Right now, someone can be on both the terrorist watch list and the no-fly list. In other words, the FBI thinks you are a terrorist and the TSA bans you from flying, but if you want to drive down to your local gun store and buy an assault rifle, there is nothing anyone can do to stop you. Over the last 10 years, people on the terrorist watch list tried to buy explosives or firearms 2,233 times. Over 90 percent of the time, they were successful. This is wrong. The American people know it is wrong, public health officials know it is wrong, and nearly every single law enforcement association in America knows it is wrong, which is why they are all in favor of closing the terrorist gun loophole. In fact, a recent poll by a Republican pollster found 76 percent of gun owners and 71 percent of NRA members said suspected terrorists should not be allowed to buy guns. If you were to walk outside the House of Representatives right now and stop someone walking down the street and ask the simple question: Should terrorists be allowed to buy guns, you would get a very simple answer. They would say: No, of course terrorists should not be allowed to buy guns. But they can. Republicans here in the House won't even let us have a debate and a vote on it. How did we get here, Mr. Speaker? How has the debate shifted so far away from commonsense gun regulation that a proposal to close the terrorist gun loophole is this controversial? Why is it that, here in the House, debate is silenced and we are not allowed to vote? The closest we came to a debate on gun legislation recently came last week when a controversy erupted about the standard procedure to observe a moment of silence on the House floor after a mass shooting. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that we have allowed this country to get to a point where Congress has to even have a standard procedure to observe mass shootings, yet we aren't even allowed to have a debate about legislation to address this problem. It is time for us to stand up to the NRA, to have a fair and open debate about gun violence, and it is time for all of us to do our job representing the American people.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, on a summer day in 1984, a young gay man named Charlie Howard was walking down the street in Bangor, Maine. A car full of teenagers pulled up, and they started yelling slurs at him. They chased him down, beat him up, and threw him in a river, where he drowned. Since then, we have made a lot of progress on LGBT rights in Maine. We passed civil rights protections, and we passed marriage equality. In Maine, as in the rest of the country, we have come far; but as the shooting in Orlando has reminded us, we still have a long way to go. We are reminded that LGBT men or women can suddenly find themselves facing the same fear that Charlie Howard probably felt on that bridge in Bangor, Maine, over 30 years ago. Civil rights and marriage equality are very important, but they are not enough. We must not rest until our LGBT neighbors enjoy the respect and dignity that they deserve and until they do not feel that their safety is at risk because of who they are.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues very much for organizing this Special Order and for the bipartisan approach to dealing with such a challenging issue. I would like to rise today to share some of the stories, as my colleagues have, about my constituents whose lives have been impacted by addiction. We are now so well aware that addiction to prescription opioids is on the rise nationwide. In my home State of Maine, that trend has also been accompanied by a drastic increase in the use of heroin and other illicit drugs. Sadly, now heroin and other drugs provide a cheaper, more readily available alternative to diverted prescription medicines. The unpredictable formulations of these drugs, which can vary drastically in toxicity, have made Maine's epidemic of addiction particularly deadly. In cities, small towns, and rural areas across the State, people are dying each week. Everyone knows someone--a family member, a friend, a neighbor--who has overdosed. No one is immune. People from every background, income level, and generation are at risk. One of the individuals we have tragically lost was a brother of a staff member of mine. His name was David McCarthy, and his struggle with addiction was captured in a feature this summer in The Washington Post, entitled, ``And Then He Decided Not to Be.'' David, who had been sober for several months, relapsed on the evening before he left home to return to his winter job at a ski resort. His family came forward to speak openly and honestly about his death because they believe, as I do, that removing the stigma and silence around addiction is an essential part of treating it as the serious illness that it is. One of the most poignant aspects of this family's experience is that the day after David's death, his brother Michael overdosed on the same batch of heroin. In Michael's case, however, he was found while he was still alive, and the same paramedics who responded to David's death happened to have a physician with them who administered an overdose reversal drug to revive him, so he survived. With his family's support, he has now entered a long-term treatment program. Access to those resources, like readily available Narcan and quality treatment opportunities, quite literally saves lives. I am deeply frustrated and disappointed that my colleagues here in Congress have been unable to come together to provide funding to address this epidemic. I am very glad to see the House working on legislation this week related to opioid abuse, but the reality is, without funds appropriated to support the new programs created, many of these bills are nothing more than political rhetoric. I am afraid that some lawmakers would prefer to have people suffering from addiction continue to turn to our already overburdened emergency rooms for care, to continue asking them to enter treatment, only to be turned away because they can't pay, or asking those people who are addicted to continue struggling to recover while also dealing with homelessness, food insecurity, and a range of other challenges. That is just unacceptable. Every victim of this epidemic represents an incredible loss, not only to the people who love them, but to all of us, in the form of missed potential. This summer I had the pleasure of meeting Chris Poulos, a University of Maine law graduate who was working to get his security clearance for a fellowship at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The process was especially difficult for him because he is a convicted felon who was arrested for drug possession during a period of addiction to opioids and other drugs; but now Chris is devoting his considerable talent and intellect to helping others--not despite, but because of his own recovery. The State of Maine and our country are better off because he could access treatment when he needed it. Our constituents need treatment, and they need it now. States can't face the epidemic alone, and they shouldn't have to. The difference Federal funding can make became clear to me recently when I visited Crossroads, a recovery center in my district. Through a Federal grant, they established a treatment program for pregnant and parenting women which allows them to remain unified with their children while working on their recovery. One participant, Helen, came to the program while pregnant with her fourth child. The caring staff at Crossroads worked with her to ensure that she was able to bond with her baby after his birth and help facilitate her transition to a long-term sober housing program. I am proud that Federal funding played a part in her recovery. I firmly believe that helping Helen to get clean is a great investment in her, in her children, and in our society. During my visit to Crossroads, though, I heard about the many people who struggle to access affordable treatment or find themselves left without any support when they have completed it. They, too, need us urgently. Congress needs to come together and appropriate emergency funds to combat the epidemic of opioid abuse in our country. Clearly, it is a matter of life and death.