This amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy rider that sadly shows extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government. The board is comprised of representatives of Federal agencies concerned with geographic information, population, ecology, and management of public lands. In this age of geographic information systems, the internet, and homeland defense, geographic names data are even more important. The board works in partnership with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies and more than 50 nations have some type of national names authority. My Republican colleagues should be more focused on creating bills that will garner bipartisan support and become law, not prohibiting funding for a board that helps surveyor, mapmakers, and scientists, and serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Chellie Pingree: “This amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy rider that sadly shows extremist Republicans are not…”
Share
More from Chellie Pingree
My colleague on the other side of the aisle said that I hate oil and gas, I hate civilization, and I hate energy. Honestly, I don't hate oil and gas. I certainly don't hate civilization. In fact, I hope we can continue our civilization. I…
This is yet again another one of those amendments proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that seeks to deny climate change and actively proposes that we do nothing. Once again, they use all kinds of terminology. They call…
By stripping away the procedures that keep discipline fair for civilian employees doing the work of naval readiness... the proposed rule introduces costly unpredictability in the workforce and needlessly undermines readiness.
It just seems like it would be a horrific time to lose those research capacities and also give up the body of research that we already have.





