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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin would prohibit funds for regulating the location of air monitors in counties.

The Clean Air Act requires every State to establish a network of air monitoring stations for criteria pollutants, using criteria set by the EPA for their location and operation.

EPA's ambient air monitoring network assessment guidance provides States and counties with information about the assessment of technical aspects of ambient air monitoring networks. The guidance is designed to be flexible and expandable. It does not dictate specific locations for placement for air monitors.

The amendment would block EPA oversight of air quality monitoring, making possible a scenario in which counties could game the system by locating monitors in places that show the lowest amount of pollution rather than where they get the best representative data.

Let us look no further than today's paper to understand why we need to ensure the proper collection of air quality data.

A headline in the Wisconsin Ag Connection reads: Canadian Wildfires Prompt State to Issue Air Quality Notice.

The article reports that the Department of Natural Resources has issued an air quality notice for all 72 Wisconsin counties this week. State air quality monitors are recording elevated concentrations of fine particles at several locations around the State, particularly across northern and western Wisconsin.

And some sites are recording values in the ``unhealthy for sensitive'' category, which includes children, elderly people, individuals with respiratory and cardiac problems, and people engaged in strenuous activities for prolonged periods of time.

This amendment would stop a transparent, science-based process to locate monitors where they will provide the most useful information about air quality.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is appropriate to dictate a nationwide moratorium on air quality monitoring in response to what appears to be a local issue perhaps in the gentleman's State of Wisconsin.

This amendment is harmful to local governments that depend on EPA's technical expertise when determining the best location for an air monitor placement. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.

I was here last night and had a chance to speak against the Hudson amendment for the very reasons that he is articulating.

Coming from Maine and being from a State where people take very seriously our waterfronts, our fisheries, our livelihood that we make on the water, there are deep concerns about the challenges that might come up with oil and gas leases.

And I think everyone in many coastal States wants to just make sure we go through the most thorough process possible. So I heartily support the concerns that he is raising, and I support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source