Chellie Pingree

Ms. PINGREE

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

Ms. PINGREE. Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history, and 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 principal conservation law, and it 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. 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. Human activities that are threatening and diminishing animal habitats, polluting nature, and accelerating global warming are driving species to extinction. 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 undercut the service's ability to work collaboratively with Tribes, other Federal agencies, States, local communities, and landowners to conserve the species. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and protect vulnerable species so that future generations benefit from a world with healthy ecosystems and robust biodiversity. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, the Interior appropriations bill we are considering today includes 92 poison pill riders in the base bill, and I object to the inclusion of any more. We are here 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 storm, and wildfire events we are experiencing. As of July 9, the United States has experienced 15 confirmed weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each. That is 15 events over $1 billion this year alone by July. As we all know, Hurricane Beryl made landfall in Texas on July 8, and we know more storms will follow this year. This amendment seeks to block the Fish and Wildlife Service from working with willing sellers to expand conservation of the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge through fee title and easement acquisitions. Investment in and expansion of the National Wildlife Refuge System follows on to the Service's work with partners to identify a conservation strategy and limited acquisition boundary that will support sandhill crane, pronghorn, and the lesser prairie-chicken, as well as a full suite of other wildlife that relies on grassland and wetland habitat types. This plan is a critical step in protecting the future of the Southern High Plains region in New Mexico and Texas for iconic species. This area is also important to conserve for related benefits, like clean water filtration and carbon sequestration, which are essential to environmental and human well-being. Our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change and making our Nation stronger. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funding for the establishment of any national monument in Malheur County. The Antiquities Act provides the President with the authority to designate national monuments in order to protect objects of historic or scientific interest. Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have used this authority to increase the protection of special Federal lands. This amendment inappropriately restricts the President's ability to declare a national monument in specific parts of the country. 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. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 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, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment, and I am sorry to tell my good friend from Oklahoma that I oppose her on this misguided amendment. 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. We should not defund or block the Smithsonian from holding LGBTQIA+ events and restricting program and content development when we know the Smithsonian is committed to broadly sharing information so parents can make decisions about what is appropriate content for their children. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I will remind the body, again, that I strongly oppose this amendment. One of our greatest strengths as a Nation is our diversity. The events that my colleague on the other side of the aisle was referring to were all held during Pride Month. It is an extremely important activity during that month to talk about the importance of our diversity and that America is not a singular experience. We represent a whole variety of people. I think that any kind of restriction on the content or programming of the art that goes on in the Smithsonian is a terrible, slippery slope. We have seen this happen at other times in our country. Some of us are either old enough or have a memory of Edwin Meese when he was the Attorney General and decided to drape the statues in the Capitol and spent thousands of dollars because he was deciding what was culturally appropriate or what should be going on. The fact is these are all widely advertised programs that parents can make decisions about. I don't think we should do anything to restrict the content, the art, or the programming at the Smithsonian. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to 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, this amendment is petty and punitive. Rather than pursuing grudges against public servants, my colleagues across the aisle should focus their energy on negotiating with the Senate on a bill to fund the government. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, this amendment, once again, is petty and punitive. I don't think this is the appropriate place to pursue grudges against hardworking public servants who we ask to do an extremely important job in Washington. Let me just say this. This is a use of the Holman rule in a way to-- just talking about my colleague on the other side of the aisle--object to the work that is going on related to climate change. This bill is going to be full of amendments from people who either don't believe in climate change, don't think we should invest in it, or aren't willing to think about the future. It is our job to make sure that we are protecting the future of this planet, of this country, of our economy, of the people who live in the United States, and the future of our children and grandchildren. We are going to hear a litany of opposition through amendments, amendments like these, from people who don't believe that we are having the hottest summer on record, who aren't paying attention to the extreme floods and to the storms that are impacting us, to the damage it has already done to the economy, to the billions of dollars we are already spending, and who are going to use any means possible to block the work we are doing to fight climate change. I oppose this amendment. I am going to continue to oppose these amendments that are really just another way to deny that climate changes exists and that we have a responsibility to work on it. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, once again, I will say that we are going to have a litany of amendments from people who don't believe in climate change no matter what they say, no matter how many times people on the other side of the aisle say, oh, no, no, I really want clean air and clean water, but I don't want to do the hard work that has to be done. To call these policies extremist Green New Deal policies is just a way to dismiss that we have a serious problem before us. We have serious work to do. It is our responsibility to protect the planet for future generations to make sure that we can continue to live and exist on this planet. Madam Chair, I reject 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, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy that sadly shows that extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM drafted a proposed draft resource management plan and draft supplemental environmental impact statement for the Colorado River Valley field office and Grand Junction field office. This plan is an updated, comprehensive, and environmentally advocate framework for managing uses of these public lands and resources. Sadly, this amendment seeks to block that plan. We are here to protect the welfare of the American public and preserve our public lands and resources for future generations. Once again, my Republican colleagues are disregarding the law and trying to circumvent the rigorous process that is in place to update resource management plans. The amendment also nullifies the public comments that have been collected by legislating the outcome. We cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change we are experiencing as our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and 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 being good stewards of our public lands and resources for the benefit of future generations. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I just want to say one thing about my colleague's amendment. She is making the case for the fact that we have to continue to drill for oil or natural gas in Colorado, and I understand the concerns that people have when the economy changes. I can imagine how difficult it is when people have to look at new opportunities as opposed to continuing the careers that they have always done. However, the reason we are here addressing this and the reason any changes would be made at a Federal level are because we are facing catastrophic climate change. The scientists have told us we have no time left to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, and yet my colleague is talking about how we need to bring more fossil fuels back into our energy stream. We have made incredible strides with solar power, wind power, and all of the renewable energy we are investing in today. She talks about her role to protect Colorado. Well, my role is to protect the State of Maine. I invite the gentlewoman to come and visit anytime. The ocean in Maine is warming at a rate 99 percent faster than the oceans around the world. I talked to a fisherman this weekend when I was home, and I asked him how fishing was going this summer as the weather has warmed up and as the ocean has warmed up. We are seeing a serious depletion in the fishing stocks. They can't survive in warmer waters. They migrate to colder waters. They devastate the economy of our fishermen. If the gentlewoman wants to preserve the economy in her State, then it is important to think about renewable energy and ways to make sure that we can support an energy future that works for all of us and not just for her own State's needs. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. This amendment would prohibit the use of any Federal funds to create national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906 in Montrose, Mesa, Montezuma, San Juan, or Dolores Counties in Colorado. 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 the 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 the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I reiterate once again that climate change is a serious issue. It is something to be debated with facts and actual information, not just speculation or things heard on the internet. One of the reasons we passed the Inflation Reduction Act is to bring some of the manufacturing for renewable energy back into the United States, and I strongly support that. I support all countries making a serious effort to reduce their investment in fossil fuel and their dependence on fossil fuel. That is what we were debating in the last amendment. This amendment is about national monuments. Again, I reiterate that national monuments and the designation of them has been an important tool for Presidents of both parties. We should not be doing anything that diminishes that opportunity for an administration. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, again, is purely an anti- climate messaging amendment. It prohibits funds for section 134 of the Clean Air Act, which is better known as the greenhouse gas reduction fund. The greenhouse gas reduction fund is a $27 billion investment to mobilize financing and private capital to address the climate crisis, ensure our country's economic competitiveness, and promote energy independence. Mr. Chair, I note that all of that $27 billion is mandatory spending. This bill does not contain any funding for the greenhouse gas reduction fund. The effect of this amendment is nothing more than anti-climate rhetoric. We are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impact of climate change. We need to make smart investments that will result in more resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future generations. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.