[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 54 (Monday, April 26, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4339-S4340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last Thursday I came to the floor to mark
Earth Day, and I wanted to highlight the laser-like focus of the Bush
administration in rolling back 30 years of environmental protections.
When one looks at their record, it is literally breathtaking.
The reason I am concerned about this is that most of our
environmental legislation was put together by bipartisan coalitions. In
my State of Vermont we do not think of the environment as a Republican
or a Democratic issue. We think of it as an issue of protecting what is
best about our country and protecting it for not only ourselves but for
our children and our grandchildren.
Unfortunately, this administration tends to look at the environment
as something where they should react to their largest contributors and
take advantage of what it may do for them today and let our children
and our grandchildren worry about it tomorrow.
Why do I say this? Three years into office, the Bush administration
has taken well over 300 actions to weaken and sometimes to gut
environmental protections to clean the air we breathe, the water we
drink, and the food we eat. They have taken huge steps to hand over our
public lands to timber, oil and gas companies for more drilling and
logging.
With this record, it is no wonder that the administration continues
to use every page of its public playbook to downplay the effect of
these rollbacks.
One of their favorite tactics is announcing environmental rollbacks
on Fridays or around holidays when they think the American public will
not be paying attention. In fact, we all know if you have something
good you want to announce, you do it early in the week, you do it with
a lot of fanfare. But if you have something you don't want anybody to
pay much attention to, you do it late on Friday.
The administration has announced at least 40 environmental rollbacks
on Fridays, another 20 on holidays. Actually, for them, every Friday is
Friday the 13th: Friday, November 22, the clean air rollback; Friday,
January 3, 2003, fast-tracked logging; Friday, January 29, 2003, clean
water protections threatened; Friday, July 11, 2003, weakened our
drinking water protections; Friday, October 10, 2003, changed
environmental rules for mining waste; on Friday, October 17, 2003,
dioxin regulation, or in this case deregulation. And on and on. These
are just a few of the actions they have taken on Friday. They show just
how far the administration has gone in gutting the Clean Air Act,
ramping up logging in some of our spectacular national forests, dumping
more mining wastes on public lands, and dumping more sewage sludge on
private lands.
Another favorite tactic is either ignoring or sometimes, if the
science doesn't suit their political needs, if they cannot get away
with ignoring the science, then they just change it. One of the most
blatant examples of this was the White House scrubbing of an annual EPA
air report to avoid any mention of evidence of climate change.
Just recently, the New York Times reported on the creative White
House fact spinning of the administration's proposed retreat from
strong mercury controls at powerplants.
We all recognize their favorite tactic: If you are going to gut the
environment, then just give it a nice name. You can see the number of
focus groups they must use in the administration to come up with these
names. They don't say, we are going to join Polluters-R-Us, or we are
going to give a payoff to some large polluting corporation because they
helped out in a fundraiser. Instead, they will go to focus groups and
find out what will sound good to people, what is a good line we can use
and maybe they won't look behind it, maybe they will just look at the
rhetoric and ignore the reality.
[[Page S4340]]
I will give some examples. ``Clear Skies'' and ``Healthy Forests''--
these are lines they use, but they are just about as accurate as ``No
Child Left Behind.''
They have used all of these tactics when it comes to misleading the
public. For example, on wetlands protections, last January--on a
Friday, of course--the administration announced one of its most
sweeping rollbacks to take away protections under the Clean Water Act
for 20 million acres of wetlands. This policy created such a
groundswell of opposition from hunters, anglers, environmental groups,
and others that the President finally withdrew the proposed rulemaking
last December. One of the things they found out is hunters, anglers,
and environmentalists often include a whole lot of Republicans as well
as a whole lot of Democrats, and that the environment is not just for
one party. But they got such enormous objection that they withdrew it--
they had to withdraw it--but they did not tell the public they were not
revoking the underlying instructions to Federal agencies to follow the
same policy that leaves 20 million acres of wetlands at risk.
That is why I found it so interesting that the President would start
his reelection attempts to greenwash his administration's anti-
environmental record by talking about wetlands. Here you have this
enormous anti-environmental record. You put at risk 20 million acres of
wetlands. You would think the last thing in the world they would want
to do is talk about wetlands, but that is what he started with. He had
some nice photo-ops walking around the salt marshes and wetlands of
Maine, but when you look between the lines of his Earth Day
announcement, it doesn't hold water.
While the President was touting his plan to restore 1 million acres
of wetlands, he made no mention of his policy to revoke protection of
20 million acres. We will give you 1, we will take back 20. He didn't
tell the folks in Maine that he proposed to cut the funding next year
for one of the programs, the Wetlands Reserve Program, that was
supposed to help meet his 1 million-acre target. You take back 20
million acres, you promise 1 million acres, but then you say, we won't
even give you the money for the 1 million. He did not tell the folks in
Maine that his administration has not fully funded this program since
Congress expanded it in the last farm bill.
Yes, as he said in Maine, the President did indeed sign the farm bill
to expand it. That is part of his job. But it is quite a leap for the
administration to now promote that as one of their environmental
accomplishments. In fact, the administration has done everything it can
to shortchange the conservation programs that are so important, not
only to Maine and Florida but to every other State. He not only
proposed cuts to the WRP but also to other programs that might help
landowners and farmers conserve the resources on their land.
When the President went down to Florida campaigning the next day, he
also forgot to mention a few key facts, such as the fact that the Army
Corps has allowed more than 3,800 acres of wetlands to be drained or
filled in the Everglades. The Bush administration stood by and watched
as the Army Corps signed off on development permits that are destroying
the Everglades. It has also argued against Clean Water Act regulations
of water being pumped from urban Broward County into the Everglades.
If you go back to the 300-plus rollbacks under this administration,
it brings up even more policies that are hurting the environment in
Maine and Florida and Vermont. The administration's retreat from
aggressive mercury controls on powerplants has just been the most
recent of these all-out environmental assaults.
It is hard to say we are family friendly when we are going to put
more mercury into the air, the water, and the fish pregnant women eat,
or by which the newborn children might be affected. That is not being
family friendly, to say we have to support our polluting industries
because they have been strong supporters of the President and it is
tough about the newborn children.
The President, as any President of any party, can always get nice
photo-ops. But his record on the environment is too mired on reversals
and rollbacks for any greenwash to last too long. Greenwash, like
whitewash, doesn't stick too long, and despite all the public relations
maneuvering, the public recognizes the enormous and long-term effect of
the Bush policies on our environment and on our health. When the
administration is done, it will mean more pollution in the rivers and
streams, more toxins in the air, and of course a lot less natural
resources to pass on to the next generation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
body for 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________