Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, we are now only 15 days away from a government shutdown, and instead of focusing on keeping the government open, we are working on a bill that is going nowhere.

The draconian cuts proposed in this bill violate the agreement reached by former Speaker McCarthy and President Biden that were memorialized in statute in Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

We would not be teetering on the brink of a government shutdown if my Republican colleagues had held up their end of the bargain.

Furthermore, we are here to protect the welfare of the American public. We cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, such as the drought, flooding, severe storms, and wildfire events we are experiencing.

As of October 10, the United States has experienced 24 confirmed weather climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each. This is a new record.

This amendment seeks to prohibit funding to further understand greenhouse gases, which will result in more resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future generations.

Not investing in strategies that minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change and instead paying billions in disaster relief shows my Republican colleagues are not thinking about what is best for the American

taxpayer. 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 focus instead on addressing climate change and making our Nation stronger.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will point out one thing that my colleague said in what I thought was a very misguided argument.

He said the benefits of using our resources outweigh the costs. He said we ignore the benefits of fossil fuels by only focusing on rising temperatures and that this is our agenda. I want to be perfectly clear. Climate change is not my agenda. It is not the Democrats' agenda. It is the majority of all scientists' agenda around the world. It is the majority of facts based on what is going on with adverse weather, warming oceans, warming temperatures, and the hottest summer on record.

To say we are just looking at our agenda completely denies the challenges that we are facing today. There are plenty of benefits of fossil fuels. In fact, we have benefited from fossil fuels for generations. We have become an incredibly wealthy Nation. I don't deny that.

For all of us, we would rather continue with the status quo, but the fact is that we know how to create renewable energy, how to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and how to reduce the warming of our planet. It is our responsibility. It is not an agenda or sort of a whim or a fad. It is our responsibility.

That is what we are here to do, to protect the American public, to protect it for future generations.

I don't know about my colleague, but I have three children and seven grandchildren. Each one of those grandchildren, if not today, if not tomorrow, then when they are old enough to talk, are going to say: Grandma, what were you doing when the planet was melting? What did you do when you had the resources, ability, and scientific knowledge to convert to renewable resources? Yet, you decided to say: I am just going to stick my head in the sand and pretend the science doesn't exist. I am going to pretend that none of this matters and is some kind of an agenda or a fluke. I am just going to put my faith in the fossil fuel industry.

We know what to do here and know what our responsibility is here. To neglect that and not continue to do what we are supposed to do to reduce the impact and mitigate the influence of climate change is completely going against our responsibility to the American public and to future generations.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment. I ask my colleagues to continue to support the work that we are currently doing in this country to mitigate the impact of climate change.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, this amendment blocks an executive order that seeks to reestablish the Federal Government as a leader in sustainability and improve the Nation's preparedness and resilience to the effects of a changing climate.

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.

The Federal Government is the single largest landowner, energy consumer, and employer in the Nation, and it is appropriate that it would lead the Nation on a path to achieving net zero emissions by transforming how the government builds, buys, and manages electricity, vehicles, buildings, and other operations to be clean and sustainable.

Not investing in strategies that minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change and instead paying billions into disaster relief shows my Republican colleagues are not thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change and making our Nation stronger, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to be clear. Congressional funding and inclusion in the annual appropriations bill is congressional oversight of the EPA. That is what Chairman Simpson, I, and the other members of the committee do every year so there is oversight of the EPA, and it is congressionally authorized funding.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. My colleague proposes that we don't allow the cancellation of lease sales in a pristine environment that is already suffering from the impacts of climate change. The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet.

It shows that my Republican colleague and so many others are not thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer. He should be focused, instead, on investing in strategies that minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change.

He invoked one of my favorite colleagues, our dear departed colleague Don Young. I remember several years ago when Don Young came to visit me in Maine to an Arctic conference, and we discussed climate change. He said: I haven't decided yet if this is man-made, but I do believe climate change is happening.

None of us can expect to share the words of Don Young, who is not with us here today, but I think he witnessed the warming that is going on in the Arctic in his State, the glacial melting.

I recently visited Alaska, and I met with Tribal communities. There are 31 communities, most of them Tribal communities, that currently have to be moved because of the glacial melting, because of the permafrost melting. The cost of that, I have heard some people estimate, is about a million dollars a person to move a community, not to mention the cultural loss, the economic loss.

The challenges that people are facing, what is going on in the Arctic today is unfathomable. Nothing we could have ever predicted. Nothing that the scientists could have predicted. Yet, my colleague wants us to continue drilling for oil. My colleague wants us to deny the importance of renewable energy.

We are talking about an area where it is expensive to drill. The fact is, most of the oil companies don't often want to be up there anymore, and it is not practical for us to be drilling for oil. To be doing it in the very places that are experiencing the losses because of climate change in such an extreme way makes absolutely no sense.

It is a misguided policy. To go against this cancellation of these lease sales is wrong. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change, making our Nation stronger, and investing in renewable energy.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, once again, I remind everyone, we are here to protect the welfare of the American public. This amendment would prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from balancing oil and gas development with protection of lands that harbor significant subsistence uses and resources throughout the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

My colleague is describing the Willow Project, an oil drilling project by ConocoPhillips that is located on the plain of the North Slope of Alaska in the National Petroleum Reserve. This amendment would prohibit the administration from stopping that project for all of the reasons we have previously discussed.

My colleagues are always talking about if we don't do this drilling, if we don't do this drilling in significantly critical areas like the North Slope of Alaska, like places where climate change is already having an unreasonable impact, we will have to go to untrustworthy foreign sources. Why is it they always use that argument, that somehow we have to go to untrustworthy foreign sources? Our goal is to convert to renewable energy, to have all American energy, whether it is wind or solar or tile or so many of the other opportunities that we have out there to make sure we do invest in America and American jobs instead of misguided projects like this.

This amendment also prohibits the BLM's ability to respond to changing conditions in the Arctic while providing transparency and conservation and development decisions.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have just one more thing to say about this project, just to know what we are talking about. It is not a hypothetical. As we have mentioned, we have already talked about the excessive warming that is happening in the Arctic, the changes they are already experiencing in places like Alaska. This project is likely to produce 287 million tons of carbon emissions plus other greenhouse gases over 30 years. It would adversely impact Arctic wildlife and Native American communities. This would damage the complex local tundra ecosystem. According to another government estimate, it would release the same amount of greenhouse gases annually as half a million homes.

We know how to do this in another way. We don't have to do this project. We don't have to drill for oil in sensitive areas, and we don't need to do this particular project.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I am opposed to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. 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.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the withdrawal for 20 years of public lands surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park from mineral leasing in order to protect these lands and the greater connected landscape in New Mexico with a rich Puebloan and Tribal nation legacy from the impacts associated with oil and gas development activities.

It does not impact valid existing rights nor non-Federal interests in the area that will be withdrawn.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to see my good friend on the other side of the aisle, and sorry that I so violently disagree with him on this particular issue, maybe not violently, but strongly disagree with him on this issue.

This amendment seeks to force the Secretary of the Interior to issue more oil and gas lease sales instead of allowing for the transition to clean energy that will result in more resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future generations.

To not invest in strategies that minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change instead of paying billions in disaster relief shows that my colleague is not thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer. Our economy and health and livelihood, food security, quality of life all depend on us making progress on climate change and renewable energies.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, my colleagues are always saying we have to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, the United States is still a major producer of oil and gas, but we have to make the investments and force ourselves to move forward on renewable energy.

We have done that through bills like the IRA. We continue to do that, and I just want to continue to support that and make sure that we are opposing expanding our oil and gas leases and just investing in renewable energy.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to block air quality monitoring. So often, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle start their speeches by saying, We believe in clean air, we believe in clean water, but apparently they don't, and certainly, in this case, this amendment does not.

Now, I come from a State with one of the highest rates of asthma. Asthma is directly attributed to not having clean air. One in nine people in Maine is experiencing asthma. Those are children. Those are adults. Those are people who have serious health impacts because of that, so why we would ever deny the opportunity to do more air quality monitoring to make sure our citizens are safe, to make sure our children don't have asthma, it is just beyond me.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's invitation for us all to come visit. I am sure it is a wonderful place. And, of course, being from

Maine, we like anything that has the word crab in the title.

Unfortunately, this amendment blocks the National Park Service from complying with the 1998 Concessions Act, which sets up the framework for evaluating commercial services and parks. It stops the Park Service from being able to complete its existing process to remain in compliance with the Act.

The amendment would effectively grandfather in all permit holders from the prior year, regardless of whether the services are necessary and appropriate. The amendment also limits the National Park Service's ability to ensure public safety of commercial services.

Currently, all vendors undergo public health, fire, and permit condition inspections throughout an operating season. These inspections have documented significant concerns such as food being cooked, held, or served at temperatures or conditions that do not meet public health standards; refueling processes that place workers and patrons at risk; lack of basic safety, and fire protection; and operating in violation of permit conditions.

The amendment eliminates the ability to manage the issuance of a permit based on current or past performance, which creates conditions that place workers, visitors, and park resources at risk from some commercial services. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment once again attempts to block the administration from ensuring that the air we breathe is clean. I truly think we can all agree that breathing clean air is a basic right. For that reason, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the use of any Federal funds to implement, administer, or enforce the Presidential proclamation that establishes the ancestral footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in Arizona, an area significant to many Tribal nations.

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.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I am opposing this amendment which would block the Bureau of Energy Management from implementing the terms of a stay agreement between NOAA and several NGOs related to mitigation measures to protect the Rice's whales in the Gulf of Mexico.

I guess my confusion here is that this amendment has already been overtaken by events. On October 27, NOAA announced that it had denied the petition from several NGOs to establish a mandatory 10-knot speed limit and other vessel-related mitigation measures to protect the Rice's whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Further, NOAA stated that it will not be proceeding with the rulemaking at this time.

I guess I would ask the gentleman, now that he is aware of this development, since this happened just on October 27, would he consider withdrawing this unnecessary amendment from a bill that is already bloated with riders? It seems to have no purpose.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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

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.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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.

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.

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I could say it any better than the chair of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee did about the reason that it never makes sense to use this amendment to reduce somebody's salary. Reducing somebody's salary to $1 is basically firing them.

When it comes to Michael Regan, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, my colleagues are talking about a hardworking public servant. I think we are very fortunate to have him there and to have him dealing with some of the biggest challenges our country is facing, whether it is climate change or environmental pollution, and moving our country forward in a very difficult time. We are grateful to have him there.

To ask a public servant to take $1 for their hard work in carrying out this administration's goals is ludicrous.

To my colleague on the Agriculture Committee, we serve together and have many areas that we work together on, and to have sort of a grudge match about this consideration about solar panels on agricultural land, frankly, doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, his mission is to make sure we incentivize solar panels, absolutely, of course.

However, to say that he is trying to do this on rich, fertile farmland goes against the mission of the USDA, and it goes against the mission of this administration.

It is always a difficult balance to figure out where to put solar panels. I know in my State we have found some projects where we have dual use where some kinds of agriculture actually can accommodate solar panels and also have grazing land and blueberry land. We have a variety of things going on. Nobody thinks we should use rich farmland--in a time when we are losing farmland all too fast--for solar panels, and I am sure Administrator Regan doesn't either.

Nevertheless, incentivizing solar panels, yes, that is absolutely the mission

of the EPA. I am thrilled they are doing that and moving us faster and faster towards renewable energy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just to respond to a couple of concerns that my colleague on the other side of the aisle raised, if we are about to promote a culture of volunteerism, I think it is very hard to ask the hardworking administrators of the EPA to serve for a dollar when we all get paid $175,000 a year which is a lot of money in my home State. I am very grateful the taxpayers of this country support us to that tune, but until all of us are willing to take a dollar for our work, it is hard to ask the hardworking members of the administration to do the same.

To say that Members on the left somehow don't want India or China to reduce their impact on climate change and their use of fossil fuels, that is ludicrous. I know that Secretary Kerry has spent a lot of time meeting with those countries trying to reduce things that they are doing that impact climate change. I agree. Those countries have to reduce it just as we are reducing it in this country.

To say that solar panels somehow should be not used in this country because we are dependent on buying them from China, well, that is based on the shortsightedness of Republicans who have consistently blocked our involvement in renewable energy.

Had the gentleman voted for the IRA, he would have seen that we are incentivizing American manufacturing and doing our best to return the manufacturing of those solar panels to this country, and if we are going to consistently oppose renewable energy and oppose the manufacture of renewable energy, then we are just going to fall further and further behind in making sure that we are making those components here in the United States.

So, once again, I reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding. I just say that, again, this idea of asking public servants to be volunteers, to serve for $1, actually carries no weight until all of the Members of Congress are also willing to serve for $1. It is completely impractical, and it would mean that only a few people would have the opportunity to serve as Members of Congress or to be in the executive branch.

Also, to criticize Deb Haaland, a woman who I was very proud to serve with in the House of Representatives, who we were very pleased to have her here as one of the first Native American women elected to Congress, but then to go on to lead the Department of the Interior as a Native American woman who also has oversight of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, who has had so much personal experience but also experience within her own community, who has a deep love of our public lands, of our natural systems, and in my opinion, has done a fantastic job, this is insulting. It is petty. We shouldn't even be here standing at this hour of the night talking about such a highly regarded and well-respected public servant.

Mr. Chair, I thoroughly oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the President of the United States from designating national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906. 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 protection of special Federal lands.

This amendment inappropriately restricts the President's ability to declare national monuments 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, and Congress should not stand in the way of these achievements.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to prohibit funding for the EPA's Global Change Research Program, which will result in more resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future generations.

The gentleman who proposed this amendment said that there is too much research on climate change and that climate change alarmism, as he called it, is immoral.

In my perspective, not being alarmed by the possibility of climate change is actually immoral. Our responsibility is to care for and protect future generations, to care for and protect the planet.

He said that the impact is too great on businesses and is creating problems for businesses. I say if we don't deal with climate change, we are impacting all of our businesses that have to deal with things in my State like sea level rise, adverse weather impacts, flooding, drought, all the things that are impacting our farmers, natural resource-based businesses, and communities.

It is our responsibility to do something about this. To say it is just alarmist or that somehow we shouldn't talk about it, research it, or do something about it is putting our heads in the sand and not taking responsibility for what we need to do.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, there is a lot of alarmism going on because we are facing a significant climate crisis. We just had the hottest summer on record. We are having some of the most challenging weather, whether it is a hurricane or a drought or flooding, impacting all of us in all of our districts.

We are facing this and trying to end our dependence on foreign sources of energy by making sure that we have renewable energy in this country, by investing in American businesses, not Chinese owned, not other foreign countries, but making sure as we did through the IRA that we are investing in American manufacturing and American energy solutions.

Most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose this. They continue to oppose the solutions that we

have to implement to make sure that we are energy independent and that we can deal with climate change. This is one more example of that.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit any funds to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates. This amendment is one of the more controversial poison pill policy riders that sadly shows extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.

Preventing disease reduces healthcare costs, such as hospitalization and pharmaceuticals, and benefits employers by resulting in less employee absenteeism. Facial masks are an essential personal protective measure to fight the COVID-19 virus.

We also know that some people infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 can suffer from the long-term effects from their infection, meaning they can experience health problems that can last for years. Why would we politicize something that would help our fellow Americans stay healthy?

From January 3, 2020, to September 27, 2023, there were 1,127,152 deaths from COVID-19 in the United States reported to the World Health Organization, some of whom the people in this room knew and loved.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I don't know that we have time to debate all the science tonight, but a study that says that mask using has no impact, I wouldn't want to go into a surgery ward and find out that the surgeon who was about to perform my operation wasn't wearing a mask.

To say that hand washing doesn't matter, I have never seen a physician who doesn't go into the emergency room or a surgical room without washing their hands.

Social distancing, this is starting to sound a little bit like crack science to me, not anything very serious, something that you might see on the internet or social media, so I question my colleague's science in this regard.

I also just say I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The Environmental Financial Advisory Board supports the EPA's mission to lower the cost of and increase investment in environmental and public health protection.

Just to be clear about its role, here are some of the activities the board pursues: ways to lower the cost of environmental protection; remove financial and programmatic barriers that raise costs; increase public and private contributions in environmental facilities and services; and build State and local financial ability to meet environmental laws.

This mission is critical if we want to ensure that the investments we need to protect our country from climate change are sound and achievable.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, it is hard for me to actually understand my colleague's argument here. He opposes modernizing the Mineral Leasing Act, basically raising lease fees at a time when he is complaining about the deficit, meaning the revenue could be very helpful.

The way I read this, we are just catering to oil and gas interests, enabling them to continue to operate at rates that don't benefit the American people.

I have no idea how this works well for us. Why would my colleague think that at a time when he is also looking for more ways to balance our budget?

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I couldn't possibly call the Inflation Reduction Act a scam that has ruined anything in America. I have to say it is one of the best things we have ever done. It is the first time we have made a significant investment in renewable energy and in defeating climate change.

I am sorry that my colleague doesn't see it in the same way. I am sorry that my colleague thinks that the only way we can end our dependence on foreign oil is to drill in his front yard. I wish him luck on that. I hope that he does discover oil in his front yard. That could be an amazing day in his life.

The fact is that we need to invest in renewable energy. We need to invest in American manufacturing.

The very idea that this incredibly wealthy industry, the oil and gas industry, shouldn't pay reasonable rates when it is extracting resources from the land that belongs to all Americans, that somehow that should be a free kind of giveaway to them, is that what the free market is? America giving away its resources to highly profitable companies is not the way I see the free market. I see the free market as paying a fair price.

For this administration to modernize this act to make sure that gas and oil interests are paying a fair price when they do drill on American public land seems only reasonable to me. It seems like a better way to take care of American taxpayers.

While the gentleman might say that doesn't amount to much money, I have been listening to bill after bill tonight where people say this person's salary here will make a difference on the deficit, that $15,000 cuts to the Secretary of the Interior would make a difference on the deficit.

I have been hearing all night long--in fact, all day and all night long, as I recall--that every penny counts. That these pennies don't count because we should be giving a break to the oil and gas industry goes far beyond my understanding of how business should work and how our job protecting American resources should work.

Once again, this is a terrible amendment, one in a string of terrible amendments, and I oppose it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, we oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment that would cripple the EPA's ability to exercise its criminal enforcement function by preventing the EPA criminal enforcement from being able to issue warrants, make arrests, or carry firearms.

I am truly befuddled by this attack on law enforcement. The majority's disdain for the EPA has been evident throughout the debate of this bill, but this amendment is beyond the pale.

I cannot understand how anyone would think it is a good idea to give a pass to criminals who deliberately break the law.

The EPA's criminal enforcement function is a vital part of our efforts to help protect the environment and safeguard the public health, but it is important to recognize that it is only one part of these efforts.

The fact is that EPA's compliance and enforcement process is a multistep process that uses criminal law enforcement only as a last resort. EPA initially provides compliance assistance

to help the regulated community understand and comply with regulations. EPA compliance monitoring subsequently assesses compliance through inspections and other activities.

Enforcement actions are initiated only when the regulated community does not comply or when cleanup is required. Criminal actions are usually reserved for the most serious violations, those that are willful or knowingly committed.

The mere threat of criminal action can and does help ensure compliance. If this irresponsible amendment passes and we remove the threat of criminal action, we will inevitably see a decline in willful compliance of our environmental laws. That would be bad news for all of us, as the quality of our air, water, and public health will inevitably suffer.

As to the issue of EPA personnel carrying firearms, I would point out that more than 70 Federal agencies employ law enforcement officers who are authorized to carry firearms and make arrests in the United States, including the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The EPA is hardly unique in this regard.

Make no mistake, this amendment is clearly anti-law enforcement. It cripples the ability of the EPA to ensure enforcement of our environmental laws and will inevitably lead to even more harm to the public health.

Let's ensure that the EPA can continue to enforce our Nation's environmental standards.

Mr. Chair, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, section 115 of the Clean Air Act is essential. It enables the United States to work with other nations to address transboundary air pollution.

As we have seen recently while Canada was experiencing historic wildfires, pollution knows no boundaries and can travel anywhere, whether by air or water.

We cannot address these environmental issues on our own, and we must work with other nations. Prohibiting the EPA from implementing section 115 of the Clean Air Act is shortsighted, and I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, on top of the cuts already included in the base bill, this would nearly eliminate the office. This means that we will no longer have anyone in the government to run programs that prevent air pollution, ensure high-quality indoor and outdoor air, monitor and reduce pollution from vehicles and engines, prevent acid rain, protect the public against radiation, and monitor and address stratospheric ozone depletion.

These draconian and shortsighted cuts put all Americans at risk.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, honestly, I don't even know where to start. I am pretty sure it is about midnight, and this is the United States Congress. We are dealing with enormous challenges in the world. We currently have a war going on in Ukraine with Russia, in Israel with the Hamas, and we are trying to face a climate change and so many serious issues, and we are here debating a plastic straw, whether or not plastic straws should be used, whether or not they are the best alternative.

I understand it is complicated, what is the best kind of straw to use, a reusable straw, a paper straw, or a plastic straw, and there are issues related to this. Nonetheless, this is because of a mandate to reduce the amount of single-use plastic.

I don't know about you, Mr. Chair, but I have an ocean border that is longer than any other ocean border in the United States, and one of the big challenges that we are dealing with right now is an excess amount of plastic in the ocean. We have no good recycling in this country. We have excess amounts of plastics in our landfill, and we have toxics that we are dealing with every day. So reducing our amount of single- use plastic is important.

Whether or not it is our job in Congress to decide what kind of straw should be used or exactly how these bans should be implemented, I just don't think it is something that we should be doing at midnight when we have a lot of big problems to deal with.

I am just disappointed to see this amendment, to see that my colleague doesn't want to address the big challenges that we have with single-use plastic, and the difficult issues that have to be dealt with.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this very shortsighted amendment.

As the chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I strenuously disagree with the idea that this funding is wasteful or nonessential. Frankly, I think the amendment demonstrates a real misunderstanding about the nature of diplomacy.

The Art in Embassies program was established 60 years ago by President John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy knew something important: Art is a bridge. It forges connections, and it starts conversation that we may not otherwise be able to have. In addition, it is one of the best ways to reflect our American values, ideals, and our culture abroad.

Over 20,000 participants globally have taken part in the program, which has presented exceptional works by American and host country artists in over 200 diplomatic properties around the world. It has also engaged over 200 American artists as cultural envoys, participating in workshops, collaborative art projects, and public events, all to strengthen ties with local communities.

The program does all of this on a shoestring budget, primarily facilitating donations from artists. It is not a frivolous expense. It is a tool of diplomacy just as valid as any bilateral meeting or negotiation. It reflects our vibrant democracy.

I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Georgia for yielding me the time.

I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill will hurt our farmers, it will hurt women and children, and it will hurt rural America. It provides $17.8 billion, the lowest level of funding for 16 years.

This bill hurts our ability to fight the climate crisis by limiting the flexibility of the Credit Commodity Corporation that the USDA uses to give farmers the tools they need to respond to climate change.

It slashes funds for climate hubs and climate research, following the hottest months ever recorded on Earth.

It strips resources for the Rural Energy for America Program, which will make electricity more expensive for over 1,600 residents in my district. It zeros out funding for the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production that handles composting and food waste. This means even more greenhouse gases will be released into our atmosphere.

This bill includes language to prevent the USDA from implementing a rule to protect farmers and ranchers from anticompetitive behavior in the meat and poultry industry.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear about the cuts Republicans are making to WIC, the nutrition program for women, infants, and children. This bill cuts WIC by $800 million. This bill also slashes the available funds for families to buy fruits and vegetables. This bill cuts WIC fruit and vegetable benefits by 56 percent for children and up to 70 percent for women.

Pregnant and postpartum participants would see their benefits drop from $44 to $13. That is $13. Anyone who has been grocery shopping in the past few months knows this is not enough--if you buy a bag of apples, some carrots, and onions, you spent your allotment for the month.

Almost one-third of children in the United States don't consume enough fruit and vegetables daily, and almost half don't consume enough vegetables daily. This program is critical to address the disparities people face in assessing healthy food.

At a time when food pantries in States like Maine are facing empty shelves, while they have huge increases in demand, I cannot fathom how Republicans can justify the cuts in this bill. Please vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate Lois Dodd's contribution to Maine's artistic record and her legacy as an acclaimed American oil painter. The painter's understated, observational scenes of farmhouses, forests, quarries and winding roads recall days spent along the coast and invoke feelings of nostalgia in anyone who has spent time in Maine. Admired for her plein-air paintings and appreciation for moments of understated importance, Dodd is credited with an alluring capacity to capture the character of her subjects.

When Dodd visited Maine for the first time in 1951, she was taken with the pace of life--so different from that of her home in New York City. The dynamic landscape and, what Dodd describe as, ``American ruins''--weathered farmhouses and barns, cracked windowpanes, shingled outhouses--provided the painter with an abundance of inspiration for her work. Even her bedroom window proved to be the perfect subject. For those native to the state, her work speaks to Maine's rich architectural, agricultural, and ecological history. For those yet to know Maine, Dodd's work invites them in and inspires them to visit the state to see the painter's subjects for themselves.

Among a group of avant-garde artists from New York, Dodd found creative respite along the coast in the summer months. Dodd co-owned a home in Lincolnville for many years with other New York artists. In the 1960s, she purchased her own property in Cushing. It is in this home that Dodd painted her well-known bedroom mural which provided later inspiration for pieces on view at the Farnsworth Museum in Rockland.

The painter even found that some of her subjects became more vibrant when she was in the state. ``In Maine, the figures would be involved with something interesting--climbing a tree, using an axe, working. She is not just lolling there. It is more alive that way,'' Dodd said.

Dodd is an elected member of the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters and the National Academy of Design. Her work is included in the collections of Bowdoin College, Colby College, the Farnsworth Art Museum, the Portland Art Museum, The Museum of Modern Art and more. The painter also spent over 50 years in the classroom, lending her knowledge and talent to countless students. Dodd's work offers an impressive testimony to the rich landscape and history of Maine--cementing the state's legacy as an influential and significant contributor to the fine arts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate a great Mainer and a longtime public servant, Leslie Merrill. Leslie is retiring this month after 22 years of dedicated constituent service to the people of Maine's First District, having served under my predecessor before joining my office.

I believe that the majority of us who work in this institution do so because we want to improve the lives of those around us.

Leslie has committed her career to doing just that--whether guiding asylum seekers and refugees through the immigration process, securing passports for many anxious travelers, or assisting Maine youth with the Academy nominations process so that they may pursue a career in the military.

Beyond her considerable skills as a caseworker, she has been a mentor to countless staff, sharing her Rolodex, her institutional knowledge, and her relationships with those in agencies across the country, all of which have been invaluable to constituents and colleagues throughout the First District.

Importantly, she has been a treasured friend to so many of us in and outside of the office. The lives of Mainers are infinitely better for Leslie having served as their advocate, friend, and neighbor.

We will miss Leslie dearly. We wish her and Peter the very best in their next adventure.

Mr. Speaker, satellite images have identified a pile of discarded clothing in Chili, sent there from Europe, Asia, and America. It is so large it can be seen from space.

This mountain of textile waste illustrates the environmental toll of what is called fast fashion. Unfortunately, fast fashion has become very popular with consumers, but it comes at a high cost to our planet.

Fast fashion relies on cheap manufacturing, frequent consumption, and short-lived garment use. This constant cycle of production and disposal is exemplified by these mountains of discarded shirts and skirts.

Textile waste has increased dramatically over the last two decades and, in the process, has become a massive environmental challenge. In 2018, 17 million tons of textiles were generated in the U.S. and 11.3 million tons were thrown into landfills.

As the rate that clothing is produced and discarded increases, only 15 percent of the clothing in the U.S. is recycled or reused, with the rest either incinerated or sent to landfills for disposal.

I am formally calling on the GAO to assess what actions the EPA has taken and can take to combat fast fashion waste.

In Maine, we have a deeply ingrained sense that you can always get a little more use out of something. I agree. The Federal Government can and must do more to stop waste and pollution. Fast fashion should be sustainable fashion.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan for both being a strong supporter of this bill and yielding me the time.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for understanding the role of the Great Lakes and how the role of ocean acidification impacts all of us. I truly appreciate his support of this bipartisan bill.

I thank Chair Lucas and Ranking Member Lofgren for their work to address the impacts that climate change has had on our oceans

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 676, the Coastal Communities Ocean Acidification Act, a bipartisan bill that would direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to support the current efforts of coastal communities already facing the impacts of ocean acidification, particularly underserved and rural coastal communities, and better equip them with the resources to respond.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are now higher than at any time in the last 2 million years, and about 30 percent of the carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean.

More carbon dioxide in our waters creates challenging growing conditions for marine organisms, especially those with calcium carbonate shells, such as clams, lobsters, and oysters.

Ocean acidification threatens not only our fisheries but the entire blue economy, our marine resources, industries, and jobs, as well as coastal communities like mine that depend on them. A 2020 report found that in the United States, particularly in the waters off Maine and Massachusetts, ocean acidification hot spots could lead to economic losses of $400 million a year by 2100.

In a State renowned for its lobster and shellfish--which as you know, Madam Speaker, is Maine--you can imagine we take this threat very seriously. I am proud of the efforts in Maine to tackle this challenge, such as through implementing ocean monitoring and data collection and exploring the ability of seaweed and kelp to lower acidity.

Madam Speaker, my bill would support these efforts and more by improving NOAA's collaboration with State, local, and Tribal Governments on community vulnerability assessments, research planning, and similar activities related to ocean and coastal acidification. In addition, ensuring the Ocean Acidification Information Exchange will bolster data sharing on ocean acidification research, data, and monitoring efforts between Federal experts, community acidification networks, and other affected stakeholders.

This legislation will address the growing and far-reaching threat of ocean acidification to help ensure our ocean industries, including fisheries, and the communities that depend on them are more resilient to our changing oceans.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 676 today.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize a Mainer whose acts of kindness and love touched the lives of so many, even though most never knew his name until now.

On every Valentine's Day since 1979, Kevin Fahrman of Falmouth, Maine, anonymously papered the greater Portland area with red hearts with the help of family and friends.

Known as the Valentine's Day Bandit, he would blanket the city with hearts large and small in an enduring love letter to Portland, Maine. Every morning on February 14, Portland residents and visitors would wake up and walk the streets of the city covered in reminders of unconditional love handed out without any expectation of recognition or thanks.

The identity of the Valentine's Day Bandit remained a mystery that confounded and delighted Mainers for decades--until now. Kevin passed away unexpectedly this past weekend, and his family decided it was finally time to unmask the man who had left an indelible mark on the city of Portland.

Kevin never wanted recognition during his life, but his family wanted to honor him in his passing.

I thank Kevin's family for sharing him with us for so long and for allowing us the opportunity to say thank you and honor him now in his passing.

May his legacy of love transcend his life and continue to inspire us to show kindness to one another every single day of the year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to a tireless advocate in my state who is retiring after over four decades of working to improve the lives of her fellow Mainers.

Barbara Crider first came to Maine in 1981 with a career in public service in mind. She spent ten years working for local Community Action Agencies in Bangor and Sanford as an Intake Specialist and Director of Community Services before pursuing a law degree at American University.

In 1994, Barbara returned to Maine permanently to found the Penquis Law Project. Barbara focused her practice on public interest family law, primarily providing invaluable representation to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

After founding a second law practice in Bangor, Barbara returned to the York County Community Action Corporation, serving first as its Deputy Director and later as its Executive Director, helping the organization to grow and diversify its program offerings. Most recently under her leadership, thousands of Mainers were able to get the assistance they needed during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In Maine, we pride ourselves on having a `can do' attitude and encouraging others to do the same. Perhaps that's why the term dirigo or `I lead' was selected for our State seal in 1820. Barbara has spent her life embodying the dirigo spirit and I am proud to extend my sincere congratulations to her as she begins her next chapter.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to recognize a courageous veteran, a resilient leader, and a selfless Mainer. Command Sergeant Major Gretchen Evans of Brunswick, Maine is one of the most decorated female veterans in American history serving in the United States Army for 27 years. Since enlisting at age 19, CSM Evans has served in tours of Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where she was responsible for more than 30,000 ground troops. Ms. Evans' honorable dedication to defending our country earned her the position of Command Sergeant Major, the highest non-commissioned officer rank in the military.

In 2006, Command Sergeant Major Evans survived a barrage of mortar fire in Afghanistan which rendered her deaf and wounded. After her combat injury, she quickly found renewed vitality by learning to lip read, forging relationships with her ``hearing dogs,'' Aura and Rusty, and by proactively reaching out to fellow veterans with similar lived experience.

Today, in Maine, CSM Evans continues to give back as an active fundraiser and ambassador for local nonprofits which provide support services to disabled veterans and which seek to prevent veteran experienced social isolation and depression. Additionally, CSM Evans is a distinguished public speaker who advocates for the importance of leadership, perseverance, and teamwork, as a part of ``Women Veterans Speak,'' a national speaker's bureau.

When she is not inspiring others to serve, CSM Evans pursues her passion for extreme sports, running 40 marathons. CSM Evans also led UNBROKEN, the first all-mixed abilities team to complete in ``The World's Toughest Race,'' a 670-kilometer, week-long endurance race held in Fiji. This achievement recently earned her the Pat Tillman Award for Service at the 2022 ESPYs, which honors individuals with both strong connections to sports and community leadership. This fall, CSM Evans will also be inducted into the U.S. Veteran's Hall of Fame in recognition for her outstanding meritorious service to our country.

I thank Command Sergeant Major Gretchen Evans, for her selfless acts of duty to keep this Nation safe. The people of Maine are incredibly lucky to have her as an advocate, a leader, and a community member. I wish her the very best and I look forward to seeing her continue to thrive.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to recognize a courageous veteran, a resilient leader, and a selfless Mainer. Command Sergeant Major Gretchen Evans of Brunswick, Maine is one of the most decorated female veterans in American history serving in the United States Army for 27 years. Since enlisting at age 19, CMS Evans has served in tours of Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where she responsible for more than 30,000 ground troops. Ms. Evans' honorable dedication to defending our country earned her the position of Command Sergeant Major, the highest non-commissioned officer rank in the military.

In 2006, Command Sergeant Major Evans survived a barrage of mortar fire in Afghanistan which rendered her deaf and wounded. After her combat injury, she quickly found renewed vitality by learning to lip read, forging relationships with her ``hearing dogs,'' Aura and Rusty, and by proactively reaching out to fellow veterans with similar lived experience.

Today, in Maine, CMS Evans continues to give back as an active fundraiser and ambassador for local nonprofits which provide support services to disabled veterans and which seek to prevent veteran- experienced social isolation and depression. Additionally, CMS Evans is a distinguished public speaker who advocates for the importance of leadership, perseverance, and teamwork, as a part of ``Women Veterans Speak,'' a national speaker's bureau.

When she is not inspiring others to serve, CMS Evans pursues her passion for extreme sports, running 40 marathons. CMS Evans also led UNBROKEN, the first all-mixed abilities team to complete in ``The World's Toughest Race,'' a 670-kilometer, week-long endurance race held in Fiji. This achievement recently earned her the Pat Tillman Award for Service at the 2022 ESPYs, which honors individuals with both strong connections to sports and community leadership. This fall, CMS Evans will also be inducted into the U.S. Veteran's Hall of Fame in recognition for her outstanding meritorious service to our country.

I thank Command Sergeant Major Gretchen Evans, for her selfless acts of duty to keep this Nation safe. The people of Maine are incredibly lucky to have her as an advocate, a leader, and a community member. I wish CMS Evans the very best and I look forward to seeing her continue to thrive.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the Fiscal Year 2023 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

I thank Ranking Member Joyce for his collaboration and partnership through this process, and I am grateful for the leadership of Chairwoman DeLauro, and Ranking Member Granger.

The fiscal year 2023 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies bill provides a total of $44.8 billion dollars. This is an increase of

$6.8 billion dollars over last year's enacted level, which is an 18 percent increase. Last year, we made unprecedented investments to fight the climate crisis, return science as the foundation for decision- making, dedicate the highest level of federal funding to the arts and humanities ever, and continue our commitment to tribal nations.

This bill continues to build on those successes. Through the investments made in this bill, our country will be better positioned to confront the climate crisis. Just last month, we witnessed Yellowstone, America's first national park, experience devastating flooding that triggered mudslides, resulting in its emergency closure and leaving damage that will take years to rebuild. Only weeks later, a destructive wildfire threatened to destroy the giant sequoias of Yosemite National Park. These tragedies underscored how vulnerable our ecosystems and species are to the impacts of climate change.

That is why the investments in this bill, such as the 15 percent increase for the land management agencies, will be meaningful for climate adaptation and resiliency efforts on our public lands. The bill also invests in renewable energy, both on and offshore, to provide opportunities for growth in this sector--creating good paying American jobs. And we make historic investments for science and environmental protection, providing the funding necessary to build a strong EPA.

In addition to these critical investments to protect our natural resources, the bill also includes strong funding for cultural resources by fostering the Arts and Humanities. The bill provides $414 million for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. These funds benefit all of our districts and are a positive tool for economic development, education, and community building.

And finally, this bill supports Native American families by investing in a strong and resilient Indian Country, including through education and health care programs.

This is a strong bill. Through its investments, the Interior bill takes a whole-of-government approach to securing a safe and habitable world for future generations. I urge my colleagues to support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate a great Mainer, Skeek Frazee.

Skeek is retiring this month after 12 dedicated years of constituent service to the people of Maine's First District.

I believe the great majority of us who work in this institution do so because we want to make life better for our neighbors. Skeek exemplifies that spirit.

For over a decade, she has committed herself to some of the most challenging and sensitive cases that come through my office. She has fought for asylum seekers and refugees who have lived through horrors in their home countries. It is no exaggeration to say that new Mainers can build thriving new lives because of her help.

She is known across the country for her work advocating for survivors of military sexual trauma bravely seeking benefits that they deserve from the VA.

Beyond her considerable skill as a caseworker, she has also mentored countless interns; been an unfailingly generous, hilarious, and kind colleague; and become a treasured friend to so many of us in and outside of our office.

Skeek, the people of Maine are infinitely better for having you as an advocate, a neighbor, and a friend. We will miss you dearly, and we wish you the very best in your next chapter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Fiscal Year 2022 omnibus bill.

I want to thank Chair DeLauro for her leadership and perseverance in bringing this omnibus to the finish line. It has been hard fought and I can confidently say that the American people will benefit from the investments made in this bill.

Thank you, Ranking Member Joyce, for your collaboration and partnership through this process. And thank you, Ranking Member Granger.

For fiscal year 2022, the Interior and Environment division provides $38 billion.

This is an increase of almost $2 billion over last year's enacted level, which is a 5 percent increase.

This bill makes long-overdue investments to care for our planet, fight the climate emergency, and meet our trust obligations to tribal nations.

The bill prioritizes the protection and preservation of our landscapes and biodiversity, providing $14.4 billion for the Department of the Interior.

It supports the administration's initiatives on climate change and affirms the role of science as the foundation for decision making.

The bill provides necessary resources to deal with the threat of wildfires in the West, providing $5.5 billion for Wildland Fire Management and it invests in programs to improve the health of our forests and make them more resilient.

The bill also includes major investments to clean up pollution and protect human health and the environment. It invests heavily in environmental justice, and I am proud that we are providing an unprecedented $100 million for these efforts, which is a nearly 700 percent increase.

Additionally, the bill provides $3.3 billion for grant programs to make drinking water and sewer system improvements, remove lead from our taps, improve air quality, and strengthen our nation's recycling infrastructure.

These grants have profound impacts on public health and the environment, but they also are economic drivers that create good paying American jobs.

This bill supports the Arts and Humanities by providing the largest increase in twelve years to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

And finally, this bill supports Native American families by investing in a strong and resilient Indian Country, including through education and health care programs.

The investments in this bill will improve the lives of Americans and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Yanina Nickless, who is my invited guest for President Biden's 2022 State of the Union address. Yanina lives in my district, but her family is home in Ukraine fighting for their lives and for democracy amid Russian invasion.

For the past week, Vladimir Putin has attempted to violently overthrow a sovereign democracy. But it's the countless examples of courage by Ukrainians like Yanina's family that has united the free world--rallying behind democracy and against autocracy--as the Ukraine people defend their homeland. As Yanina told me, ``Every day I wake up, I hope my parents wake up too. I'm staying strong for them and for my country and I believe in the USA and in the world. Thank you, Congresswoman Pingree and President Biden, for not being silent and for supporting a democracy in Ukraine. Ukrainians will never forget.''

It is truly an honor to have Yanina join me tonight as President Biden further unites our nation with his State of the Union address. Yanina and her family's heartbreaking story deserves to be heard on the global stage--joining a chorus of courage in the fight for freedom. Under President Biden's leadership, the U.S. stands firmly against Russia's unprovoked war.