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 this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, to be clear, I fully support all oversight efforts and believe the mission of the inspectors general across government is vital, but I disagree with the offset and the treatment of the EPA in this bill generally.
In the base bill, the EPA is cut by nearly 20 percent. Almost every single account is cut except for the Office of the Inspector General. Quite frankly, the Inspector General's Office does pretty well under this bill.
Cutting every single program at the EPA and seeking to increase funding for only one office, which happens to be the oversight office, is a clear attempt by the majority to politicize the Inspector General. That is unacceptable.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that the gentleman from Georgia is able to get his road paved. This is the wrong way to go about doing it. I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, 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 strong opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. 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, that 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.
This working group specifically looks for ways to foster an inclusive and respectful culture as it relates to water quality monitoring and assessment. Our success in achieving water quality goals depends on learning from people of all backgrounds.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would block an EPA rule that implements a program to further reduce air pollution, including ozone and particulate matter from heavy-duty engines and vehicles across the United States. Both of these pollutants have significant negative impacts on human health.
Ozone is the main component in smog, and it has been scientifically proven to aggravate lung diseases, increase the frequency and severity of asthma attacks, and reduce lung function.
We have a responsibility to protect the millions of Americans affected by ozone and particulate matter pollution. For that reason, 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 back the balance of my time.
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, which would effectively bar the EPA from approving a waiver of Federal preemption for California's in-use locomotive rule.
Congress carefully crafted the Clean Air Act to recognize the diverse air pollution challenges facing each State. Due to a history of severe air quality problems, the EPA can grant California waivers to set vehicle emissions standards that are more protective than those at the Federal level, including for locomotives.
While the EPA retains the authority to promulgate emission standards for new locomotives and locomotive engines, California is well within its rights to request a waiver of Federal preemption for regulations having to do with existing, or in-use, locomotives and locomotive engines.
Legal technicalities aside, this rule is critical to the public health and welfare of Californians and for residents of the States that may choose to adopt these stronger standards in the future, thanks to the flexibilities embedded in the Clean Air Act.
Diesel-powered locomotives emit dangerous air pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and greenhouse gases. Exposure to this toxic and harmful pollution has been linked to cancer, asthma, cardiopulmonary illnesses, reproductive health harm, and premature mortality. California's rule is expected to prevent 3,200 premature deaths, 1,100 hospital admissions, and 1,500 emergency room visits and deliver $32 billion in health savings. For California communities near rail yards, this rule is projected to decrease cancer risk by over 90 percent.
This amendment is yet another Republican attack on EPA's authority to protect public health from sources of dangerous pollution and simply another item on their polluters over people agenda.
A ``no'' vote on this amendment is a vote for protecting public health and preserving States' rights under the Clean Air Act. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to side with the law and with science.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, we are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and this provision prevents a fair return to the American taxpayer from oil and gas leasing conducted on public lands.
By prohibiting the modernization of the Mineral Leasing Act, we are catering to the oil and gas interests and enabling them to continue to operate at rates that do not benefit the American people.
Fossil fuels accelerate the impacts of climate change, and this amendment demonstrates my Republican colleagues would rather pay billions for disaster relief than focus on clean energy. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, my colleague on the other side of the aisle says this is a measure to give relief to the American consumer and is pro-middle class.
First off, I don't know how anyone with a straight face has a giveaway to the oil and gas industry and says it is a relief to the American consumer or a benefit to the middle class. There is nothing in here that does anything good for the middle class, and there is nobody in America who thinks that if the oil and gas industry is helped, somehow consumers have gotten a personal benefit from that.
Mr. Chair, we all know climate change is real. We are very actively engaged in trying to produce more renewable energy and reduce our fossil fuel dependence. That is number one. That has to be our number one goal as Members of Congress.
Second, this simply says that when we use public land for accessing oil and gas, we ask those companies, which make billions in profits, which everybody in America knows--they actually think that they should get a break?
This actual fee has not changed since the 1920s. It is going from 12.5 percent to 16 percent when it has not changed since the 1920s. Does anybody think we should continue to give the same incredible break to the oil and gas industry that they have had since the 1920s?
It is a small modernization. It is money in the pocket of American taxpayers for using American land to derive this resource.
Mr. Chair, I think it is ludicrous that anyone should block this provision in law. It is about time we modernize the Mineral Leasing Act, and this is a simple provision that just says to make the oil and gas industry pay its fair share.
When my colleague on the other side of the aisle says that countries around the world are laughing at us because we are not producing more oil and gas, they might be laughing at us for giving away money to the oil and gas industry.
As I said, no one thinks that they are hurting. No one thinks that if we gave them a savings on this, they would somehow miraculously pass it on to the consumer, and because they are such a benevolent industry, the first thing that they want to do is take this little break that we are giving them and say to give the consumers a break.
No one thinks that the price at the pumps or the price they are paying goes down because we give them 12.5 percent instead of 16 percent. This is a ludicrous amendment. I can't believe that anyone would propose this with a straight face.
Mr. Chair, I urge 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 the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, the Financial Advisory Board supports the EPA's mission to lower the cost 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; removes financial and programmatic barriers that raise costs; increases public and private contribution in environmental facilities and services; and builds State and local financial ability to meet environmental laws.
This mission is critical if we want to ensure that the investments we need to make to protect our country from climate change are sound and achievable.
Mr. Chair, I oppose 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, we are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, such as the drought, flooding, severe storm, and wildfire events we are experiencing.
As of July 9 of this year, the United States has experienced 15 confirmed weather-climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each. As we all know, Hurricane Beryl made landfall in Texas on July 8, and we know more storms will follow this year. This amendment seeks to 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.
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.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change and making our Nation stronger.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, 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 this alarmist. They call it a progressive, woke, democratic agenda. I don't even know what all these words mean. What is a woke agenda on climate change?
This is the majority of scientists in this world who tell us that we have a crisis, not only a crisis coming, but a crisis that is already upon us: flooding, extreme weather, extreme heat.
We are in the hottest summer on record. We are in the hottest month on record. What does it take to convince people that it is our responsibility to protect the American public, to protect American industry and economy, and to protect the planet instead of paying billions?
Did anyone hear that statistic I had before? As of July 9, the United States has experienced 15 confirmed weather-climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each.
It means we have already had 15 events totaling more than $1 billion, and we are only in July. I do not understand the economics, the math of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say, oh, no, we will just think about this some other day. This is just a climate woke agenda and we don't care if we pour out billions of dollars.
Has the gentleman had a climate disaster in his district? I had two extreme storms in January that wiped away fishing wharves, wiped away commercial businesses. He talks about getting out of the way of businesses and how we have to be pro-business.
How would he feel if he was the owner of a small fishing pier, and it was wiped away, and the climate disaster money wasn't there for him? What if there wasn't some kind of fund that immediately rebuilt his fishing pier? What is he doing this summer? Where would he put his lobster traps? Where would he dock his boat?
How would he deal with this?
What about the small restaurant that was flooded twice in one month by extreme storms, tides, tidal surge like we have never seen before?
We have had two 100-year storms in one month. We used to call them 100-year storms because they are only supposed to happen once in 100 years. Now they have some other category because we don't even know what to call them anymore.
These are climate disasters that are real, yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle consistently keep making these amendments that just deny the climate change, which say we shouldn't even spend any money on it and say somehow this is pro-middle class.
My colleagues say: We are helping the American consumer. We are helping the American taxpayer.
Are they really?
How does it help the taxpayer to spend billions in relief because they won't even admit to the facts that we have to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, American oil, and fossil fuels. We have to reduce that dependence.
We have to invest and continue to invest in renewable energy, which actually has produced hundreds of thousands of green jobs. They talk about innovation, getting out of the way of industry, yet they consistently get in the way of renewable energy innovation because they don't want to admit that this is real because they are all somehow continuing to support the oil and gas, the fossil fuel industry.
This progressive, woke, democratic agenda, whatever they want to call it, is just the facts. The fact is that climate change is upon us. This extreme weather is here today, and somehow my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to waste American taxpayer dollars, want to not make the investments that we need to make, want to continue to cut in bills like this, and it is not helping the American public. It is not good for the future of Americans. It is not good for our health.
I don't know if the gentleman has children or grandchildren, but I worry about what the future will be for my children and my seven grandchildren. I don't want them to come to me some day and say, hey, grandma, what were you doing when we needed to do something about this? What were you doing when we needed to prevent the climate change that is upon us today?
Were you just sitting there with your eyes closed and pretending it didn't exist? Were you using a bunch of jargon, quoting social media, and some memes that you saw somewhere, or were you talking about scientific facts and really doing things to invest in your children and grandchildren's future because it is upon us.
Mr. Chair, I encourage everyone to oppose this, 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, I strongly oppose this amendment that would cripple the EPA's ability to exercise its criminal enforcement function by preventing 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.
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 the 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 the regulations.
EPA compliance monitoring then 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 a 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 and water and the 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 from 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 more harm to the public health.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source