Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2025

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, the Interior bill we are considering today includes 92 poison pill riders in the base bill that cripple environmental protection, undermine climate change policies, add to the national debt, and include discriminatory riders targeting millions of American citizens that have already proven so divisive in earlier markups.

This amendment would block the EPA from implementing air pollution regulations for lime manufacturing plants. The EPA rule will reduce emissions of toxic air pollution by nearly 900 tons per year from hazardous air pollutants such as dioxin and mercury.

EPA initiated this rulemaking as required by a court case to comply with their 8-year technology review timeline required under the Clean Air Act.

As a result of the lawsuit and subsequent emissions data collection, EPA found four pollutants that were unregulated in proposed reasonable standards to achieve better air quality and public health.

EPA worked closely with the Small Business Administration and included regulatory flexibilities to address small business concerns.

EPA balanced industry concerns alongside their duty to protect public health and the environment in this rule, and they were statutorily required to update.

The rule is important to the people who live in communities next to these facilities, to the workers at these facilities, and it is critical that this rule go into effect and not be a political pawn in the appropriations process.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I do want to assure my colleague on the other side of the aisle that I thoroughly understand the importance of lime in many manufacturing and agricultural processes. I actually have a cement manufacturing facility in my district, agricultural lime facility in my district, and I personally have spent many years as a farmer or gardener.

Just last week, I spread lime on my soil to make it more alkaline because we have very acidic soils in much of Maine. I am not unaware of the importance of lime, but I am also aware of our role in Congress of making sure that we reduce pollution and that we make sure we keep our citizens safe. This is a perfectly appropriate rule.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. 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 saw last year, while Canada was experiencing historic wildfires, that 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. I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would allow those that pollute the Chesapeake Bay to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency's water quality standards.

Restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed continues to be a priority. The EPA established mandatory water quality standards, and Congress has appropriated over $1 billion for the Chesapeake Bay program to help States, localities, and businesses meet those standards. This amendment would jeopardize that funding and have devastating effects on the health of the bay.

This amendment is not about the well-being of Virginia, Maryland, and the surrounding States. It is about the fact that some industrial operators don't think they should be responsible for controlling the pollution they dump into our rivers and streams across the country. The courts have sided with the EPA on this matter.

For more than 35 years, the regional partnership created through the Chesapeake Bay program has sought to restore and protect the Nation's largest and most productive estuary. This amendment would undermine decades of work and have lasting damaging effects to the health of the bay and the economy that it supports.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, any time I hear one of my colleagues across the aisle say we don't need the EPA or that the actions of the EPA are extortion or retaliatory, I don't know about the specific actions that he is talking about today, but I do know, as someone who represents a State with as much coastline as any State in the Nation with estuaries, with bays, with an extreme dependence on our shorelines, on our watersheds, on the ocean itself, I know that the Chesapeake Bay is an incredible resource to this country. The health of the bay has been a big concern for over 35 years, and the work that the EPA does to keep it clean is extremely important.

This amendment that attempts to undermine those efforts, to undermine decades of work, is absolutely unnecessary and not anything that any of us should support. This has the likely impact of undermining the efforts of our fishermen, our residents of coastal communities, and the economy in the Chesapeake Bay, and it is a misguided amendment.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment eliminates funding for the Council on Environmental Quality.

The office is responsible for coordinating the Federal Government's efforts to improve, preserve, and protect Americans' public health and environment. It also works to ensure that environmental reviews for infrastructure projects and Federal actions are thorough, efficient, and reflect the input of the public and local communities.

This amendment would hobble the office and result in significant delays to infrastructure projects around the country.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is a legislative earmark to benefit oil and gas producers. It would tell the EPA to ignore potentially unhealthy air in the counties that make up the Permian Basin.

For the past few years, air monitors located in the Permian Basin area have shown violations well above EPA's 2015 ozone standard. So it is more than reasonable for the EPA to evaluate conditions in the area, consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, but this amendment would prevent the EPA from redesignating the Permian Basin as being in nonattainment of the 2015 ozone standard.

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set a national ambient air quality standard for contaminants, like ground-level ozone, that are adequate to protect public health, including the health of sensitive groups such as children and the elderly.

These health-based standards, the NAAQS, must reflect recent scientific and medical data. Once the EPA sets or revises the NAAQS, EPA uses air monitoring data and recommendations from States to determine which areas meet the standards and those that do not, known as being in nonattainment.

States then go to work to develop plans using the most cost-effective strategies to bring nonattainment areas in compliance with the standard.

Allowing a region that exceeds the standard to be considered in attainment doesn't do anything for the families and the workers living in those counties breathing the toxic air. It tells Americans that there is nothing to see here while they bear the brunt of the environmental hazards.

Contrary to what polluters would have you believe, being designated as nonattainment does not shut down the economies. Businesses have and do continue to operate and expand in nonattainment areas. However, the designation ensures that States and businesses are taking measures to control air pollution and help communities to achieve cleaner, healthier air.

The Interior bill we are considering today includes 92 poison pill riders in the base bill, and

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, 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 am deeply concerned that if we continue our dependence on oil and gas that we won't have a civilization, that our children and grandchildren won't have the opportunities that we had, that our small businesses and our communities won't be able to function.

The whole reason we are talking about any of this is because we have the impending challenge of climate change that is already upon us today. In order to reduce the effects of climate change, we have to reduce our use of oil and gas, and we have to make sure that the pollution, as we are talking about in this bill, isn't impacting our communities.

It is interesting, my colleague mentioned that in the airport he sees people traveling to and from work in this area. Is it possible that crowd of people don't want to live in this area because the pollution and the effects are too strong and they would prefer just to go to work and get home to breathe some clean air somewhere else?

My colleague assumes that if we don't continue at the level we are operating on that we will be buying oil from Iran or China or Russia. He seems to forget that we have a booming industry going on in green energy. Whether it is renewable solar or wind or many of the other innovations that are taking place right now, they are far outpacing our use of oil and gas. In many States, the green energy jobs and the innovation are where all of the economic development and activity is.

For him to say this is our only opportunity or this is all because some of us hate oil and gas or want to penalize people for this, it is absolutely wrong. We are merely trying to bring our country into this modern era and make sure that we are investing in energy. I don't hate energy. I believe in renewable energy, and I believe there are tremendous opportunities out there.

I also want to make sure that communities that are impacted by the pollution, as we are talking about here, are protected, that those communities have the right to breathe clean air as we all hope we can do.

I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, in recent years, Democrats have made historic investments in environmental justice, and the EPA has already put those dollars to good use.

It is unfortunate that my colleagues across the aisle continue to attack good government programs. Environmental justice ensures that all Americans receive the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards, which is particularly important in rural communities, many of which are in the very districts of my colleagues across the aisle and myself.

Rural communities and low-income communities have long been targeted by corporations, regulatory agencies, and local planning and zoning boards when siting polluting facilities. This includes things like landfills, waste transfer stations, incinerators, garbage dumps, diesel bus and truck garages, auto body shops, smokestack industries, industrial hog and chicken processors, oil refineries, chemical manufacturers, and radioactive waste storage areas.

Because of this, these communities typically have lower property values, higher health disparities, and shorter lifespans.

Why would my colleagues try to defund any effort to improve the lives of people in rural and low-income communities? It is yet another attempt to implement an extreme agenda, to attack minority groups at all costs, and to return the United States to a time when environmental discrimination was the norm.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support our rural and our low- income communities by rejecting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Chair, the right to vote is a foundation of American democracy. Free and fair elections are a hallmark of our country, and all Americans should have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote without confronting obstacles.

The laws of the United States prohibit racial discrimination, but we are aware of instances where Americans in certain communities are confronted with long lines at the polls or barriers to their participation. I am disappointed that my colleague would want to restrict funding for this executive order that strives to make voter registration easier, expand access to information, and make voting more accessible.

My colleagues across the aisle talk about protecting First Amendment and Second Amendment rights, yet Republicans would prohibit funding for efforts to ensure the basic democratic right for every American to vote.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would be detrimental to the Forest Service's ability to maintain quality fisheries and safe public drinking water.

Decommissioning of roads is a critical tool in the management of the National Forest System that allows the service to remove roads that are no longer necessary and are likely to cause resource damages to the local watershed affecting fish habitat and water quality.

Decommissioning is used judiciously within the National Forest System, and it is necessary for the Forest Service to ensure that the removal of the road will have little to no impact to public access or fire suppression. Often, when one road is decommissioned, another existing road is identified as the alternative access to the local area which allows access to be maintained. This is an unnecessary amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source