Chellie Pingree

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina and his concerns about jobs for his home State, but as a Member of Congress who also represents the coastal State of Maine, I know the deep concerns that people have about the potential dangers of offshore oil drilling and the possible dangers to the fisheries, marine mammals, and a whole variety of other things. The reason we have this process is it is critically important to our State. Mr, Chairman, I continue to 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, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, the amendment would prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from using its legal authorities to modernize its royalty rate structure, which would result in less revenue to the Treasury. The Department of the Interior's oil and gas royalties have been the subject of repeated study by the Government Accountability Office and other entities for many years. In 2008, the GAO said the United States could be forgoing billions of dollars in revenue from the production of Federal oil and gas resources due to the lack of price flexibility in royalty rates and the inability to change the fiscal terms on existing leases. In 2013, the GAO issued another report that noted concern that the Department of the Interior had not taken the steps to change the onshore royalty rate regulations. Modernizing the Bureau of Land Management's rate structures can provide critical flexibility, especially given the dramatic growth of oil development on public and tribal lands, where production has increased in each of the past 6 years and combined production was up 81 percent in 2004 versus 2008. It seems to me that it is critical that the Department of the Interior is ensuring that the public is receiving a fair return from the production of oil and gas from Federal leases. This amendment would guarantee a sweetheart deal for Big Oil companies at the expense of the American taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, in spite of the arguments that my colleague from New Mexico has made, I still say this amendment, in my opinion, doesn't pass the straight face test. I can't imagine my constituents thinking that we should make things any easier for the oil and gas companies or that we should be giving away the opportunity to earn taxpayer revenue on our Federal lands. The Federal onshore royalty rate has not been increased since 1920. That is 95 years. The offshore royalty rate is 18.75 percent; yet the onshore rates have been stuck at 12.5 percent for 95 years. Where is the equity in that? As far as I am concerned, I think it is time for the American taxpayers to get a fair return on the use of public resources, especially from some of the most profitable companies in the world. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. PINGREE. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. The gentleman's amendment would prohibit funds in the act from being used to lobby on the waters of the U.S. There is an existing prohibition on lobbying that applies to all Federal employees that has been in place since 1919, so this is an unnecessary and redundant amendment. I would remind my colleagues that Federal employees are not prohibited from providing information to Congress on legislation, policies, or programs. There must be an open dialogue between the legislative and executive branches to ensure that laws are being implemented appropriately and programs achieve their intended goals. We should not and cannot operate in an information vacuum. We don't need to add extraneous, redundant provisions to a bill that is already overburdened with harmful legislative riders. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concerns raised by the gentleman from Oregon, but this amendment would prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from completing or implementing updates to certain resource management plans in western Oregon. These updated plans cover 2.5 million acres of land that play an important role in the social, economic, and ecological well-being of western Oregon, as well as to the American public generally. The plans determine how BLM-administered lands will be managed to further the recovery of threatened and endangered species, provide for clean water, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, produce a sustained yield of timber products, and coordinate land management of surrounding tribal land. The amendment would suspend the BLM's authority to implement a new resource management plan in western Oregon. As a result, the BLM would be forced to rely on a 20-year-old outdated plan that doesn't incorporate significant new information. For example, the old plan does not include important conservation activities, such as the northern spotted owl recovery plan. The amendment would block one of the most comprehensive and detailed landscape plans that the BLM has ever developed and would ignore significant public input. The public has a right to engage in the management decisions of their Federal lands. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to say I appreciate the concerns that the gentleman from Oregon has raised, and other Members from Oregon who share those concerns. I thought it was important to address some of the considerations and concerns that we have with this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. This amendment would mandate that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management include the South and mid-Atlantic area of the Outer Continental Shelf, otherwise known as sale 260 in the 2017-2022 lease sale schedule. The amendment would undermine the Bureau's fundamental mission to manage the development of offshore resources in an environmentally and economically responsible manner. The Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf is a frontier area, and the decision to include sale 260 in the 2017-2022 5-year leasing schedule should be informed by sound science, using the best available data. The Bureau is required by law to consider the environmental impacts of leasing decisions, and this includes a comprehensive programmatic environmental impact statement, which has not yet been completed for the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. In fact, the most current geological and geophysical data on the oil and gas resources in this area was collected in the 1970s and 1980s. That is really ancient by today's scientific standards. Without the collection and analysis of new information, input from State Governors and other Federal agencies, and consideration of critical economic analyses, the decision to include sale 260 in the 2017-2022 program is premature and runs counter to the thoughtful and deliberative process established by Congress through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. This amendment would violate multiple environmental statutes, including NEPA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. The amendment undermines environmental protection required by law. Therefore, I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns of the Member from North Carolina, and I will give him credit. They have better barbecue than my home State. We have got you beat on lobsters, but that is how it goes. I want to say I think this argument is somewhat cynical and a little too suspicious of our government; perhaps Republicans have gotten too far down this road. My understanding is this summer, a conservative media outlet ran a sensationalized story about EPA's regulatory overreach. The story claimed that EPA has its eyes on pollution from backyard barbecues. The problem with the story and this amendment is that it is based on a false premise and a mischaracterization of important work. EPA operates a successful and innovative grant program that encourages students around the Nation to design solutions for a sustainable future. It is called People, Prosperity, and the Planet Student Design Competition for Sustainability. Its purpose is to foster innovation, not to create regulations. The EPA awarded one of these design grants to a group of University of California students working to design a system to make barbecues burn cleaner and be better for the environment. The students received $15,000 from the EPA for the idea. In addition, the university has said the idea has potential for global application. Mr. Chair, in many developing nations, women hunch over traditional cook stoves for hours a day, breathing in toxic smoke. Exposure to this household air pollution is responsible for low birth weights, childhood pneumonia, and more than 4 million premature deaths each year. The availability of cleaner cooking technologies could literally be lifesaving for many of these women and children. Instead of attacking the EPA for these innovative grants, we should be applauding them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am happy to have an exchange--North Carolina barbecue, Maine lobster. It is probably a pretty fair exchange. I just want to clarify. It is $15,000, not $15 million that the EPA spent working on this innovation. I understand your concerns, and I appreciate the points that you brought up. Mr. Chairman, I continue to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be from a state with a lasting tradition of supporting arts education. From Winslow Homer to Andrew Wyeth, Maine artists have long been recognized for their extraordinary talent. This is in no small part due to the emphasis that Maine schools have put on arts education. I'm so grateful for the many educators who have made teaching our youth about the arts a priority. This year, the Great Salt Bay Community School in Damariscotta, Maine won the National Association of Music Merchants Foundation's SupportMusic Merit Award for the exceptional quality of its music program. They have led our state in arts education, and I am confident that their program serves as an inspiration to schools across the country that are looking to better educate their students about the arts. Winning the SupportMusic Merit Award is a prestigious honor, and the entire Damariscotta community should be proud. This achievement belongs to the administration, teachers, students, families, and town as a whole. I am so proud to have this excellent school in my district. This award is a testament to its teachers' dedication and commitment to their students as well as to the tremendous talent that is required to motivate and properly educate students about music. It gives me great pleasure to offer the Great Salt Bay Community School--along with its teachers, staff and students--my sincerest congratulations on this prestigious award, and my best wishes for the years to come.

Ms. PINGREE

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, while I certainly appreciate the challenges that so many Western States are facing right now with the drought and very frightening wildfires, I need to oppose this. Unlike most programs in H.R. 2822, especially within the Forest Service, the base hazardous fuels program received a $10 million increase above the FY 2015 enacted level. There is a reduction in H.R. 2822 to the biomass grant portion of the hazardous fuels program, but I see nothing in this amendment that addresses that cut. We would all like to see increases in funding for many programs funded by the bill. Chairman Calvert has certainly been a strong advocate for a robust wildland fire program, including hazardous fuels. Coming from the fire-prone State of California, as he just mentioned, he knows as well as anyone that our fire programs needs support, and he has funded that accordingly. To provide what would be a record level of funding for hazardous fuels, the sponsor of this amendment would cut an additional $20 million from the EPA, which is why I feel it is important to oppose this amendment. This bill already severely cuts the EPA's main operating account by $141.4 million, or 5 percent. I strongly oppose an amendment that takes more money from the already starved EPA. The very air we breathe and the water we drink are endangered by the funding and policy decisions made in this bill, and their consequences will be negatively felt in communities across this Nation. I know cutting EPA is an easy target for many of my colleagues across the aisle, but I want to make sure that my colleagues understand what this amendment would cut if it was adopted. This account funds programs that are important to both sides of the aisle, including permitting for construction projects across the country, toxics risk prevention, the cleanup of toxic waste sites, pesticide licensing, and radiation prevention. EPA's work goes beyond the political talking point of scary regulations and is necessary to keep vulnerable populations safe from environmental disasters. It is beyond reason, frankly, to cut the very Federal employees that have ably responded to the disasters such as the BP oil spill and the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008. I do not support gutting the EPA further, and I oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. I thank the ranking member for yielding me time and for the nice comments and the ability to work with her on the committee. I do appreciate the work of the Chair and the ranking member very much on this bill. Mr. Chair, there are so many important programs that are funded in the Department of Interior Appropriations bill. I am proud to be on this committee and particularly to serve on this subcommittee. Today's bill was written by a very good chairman in conjunction with a great ranking member, but at the end of the day, the funding levels are still too low. We cannot get bipartisan support on this bill when there are not enough dollars to go around. The reality is we need to get rid of the sequester, roll back the Budget Control Act caps, and pass these bills with funding levels that move our country forward, not backward. As so many of my colleagues have stated, when adjusted for inflation, this bill provides less than the appropriated levels in FY 2005. That is just not sufficient for the vital programs in this bill, programs that monitor and protect the water we drink and the air we breathe and regulate the products we use. There are some highlights in today's bill, such as the Bureau of Indian Education construction budget and the Forest Legacy program and the international forestry accounts, and I am glad to see them there, but there is so much more to be concerned about. I am deeply disappointed in the cut to the Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species listing program, which is cut by 50 percent, and the overall Land and Water Conservation Fund cuts. This overall Land and Water Conservation Fund level is 20 percent less than last year, and that is very frustrating, knowing how important this program is to every single congressional district in the country. I am concerned that programs such as the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program are funded at last year's level--and no higher-- when we really need to understand the diseases that affect our fish and establish treatment options to protect them. The U.S. Geological Survey that funds critical research programs and the monitoring of climate change, stormwater gauges, earthquake and weather research is also funded only at last year's level. The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities were denied the additional resources they requested, including funds that would have been used to increase programming for our veterans and wounded warriors. For those of us in Maine who are so proud of our national park, Acadia National Park, and are strong supporters of parks across the country, there is simply not enough funding. There are not enough dollars for the improvements and maintenance that is needed in any given year, but particularly needed in this special centennial year. The National Park centennial is a once in a lifetime opportunity for us to highlight our parks and help millions of Americans who have not been to a national park before to see our Nation's greatest treasures. Again, I recognize completely the position that this subcommittee and our other subcommittees have been in because of the Budget Control Act caps, but these programs deserve more. I look forward to working with our chair and ranking member as this bill moves forward, to try to improve the areas that still need attention.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 135th anniversary of the Friendship Sloop, a style of sailing vessel that stands as an icon of Maine's maritime heritage. Friendship Sloops were developed over a century ago in Maine's Muscongus Bay as fishing and lobstering boats. Their beautiful lines served an important purpose. The shape of the hull provided great stability and lobstermen could sail the boats by themselves while laying and checking their traps by hand. Many local craftsmen were known for building them, but none more than Wilbur Morse of Friendship, Maine. Morse's shop turned out so many of the boats that they eventually became known by the name of his hometown. With the advent of modern-day engines in the 20th century, the Friendship Sloop fell out of favor as a fishing vessel. But it wasn't long before its beauty and functionality made it a popular design for recreational sailboats and yachts. Its distinctive shape lives on to this day with the help of many enthusiasts who carry on its legacy. Since 1961, the Friendship Sloop Society has hosted an annual regatta and connected a community of people who sail, rebuild, and appreciate these boats. Much has changed since 1880, but life on the Maine coast retains many connections to those earlier days. Hard-working individuals still make their living on the water. Tight-knit communities still pull together for each other. And Friendship Sloops still gracefully ply the waters, their design largely unchanged in 135 years. Some things just cannot be improved upon. My appreciation goes to all those who keep the tradition of the Friendship Sloop alive. It gives me great pleasure to celebrate its 135th anniversary.