[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6022-6024]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been amazed at the first 100 days 
of the Bush administration in relation to the environment issue. When I 
say the environment, I don't just throw that word out. I am talking 
about air, I am talking about water, I am talking about drinking water, 
I am talking about parks, and I am talking about cleaning up Superfund 
sites and brownfield sites. The fact is, we have a situation on our 
hands that is going to be very dangerous for our people.
  Why do I say that? I say that for a couple of reasons. First of all, 
we see rollbacks on very important issues. We have all heard about the 
President backing off the pledge he made in the campaign to deal with 
CO2 emissions which cause major problems in air quality. We 
know he has backed off that.
  We saw him evaluate a number of rules that were put in place under 
the Clinton administration. The one that I cannot get over--there are a 
number; I don't have time to get into them--is the one dealing with 
arsenic. We know a few things about arsenic. It is unsafe at any level. 
We know for a fact that at the current level of arsenic that is allowed 
in our drinking water, if you drink out of that water supply, 1 out of 
100 people will get cancer--not may get cancer, not might get cancer, 
but will get cancer. We know this to be the case.
  Yet this administration, in violation of the law, in my opinion--that 
will be tested in the courts--reversed the Clinton administration rule 
on arsenic to reduce the parts per billion that would be allowable, 
where the Clinton administration had gone from 50 parts per billion to 
10 and he put us back at 50 parts per billion.
  Let me list some of the countries that have a standard of 50 parts 
per billion. I will give you an idea of the countries that allow 50 
parts per billion of arsenic: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, 
Egypt, India, and Indonesia. That is an example.
  Let me list some of the countries that have the 10 parts per billion: 
European Union, Japan, and Jordan.
  I have to say that we owe our people safe drinking water. If we owe 
them nothing else, we can argue a lot of things, but the Federal 
Government needs to make sure that our people are safe.
  What we have is a rollback on a number of fronts. I am just talking 
about the arsenic one today. There are others. I will save them for 
another day. But in addition to this, in order to pay for his tax cut 
to the wealthiest people who do not need it, those over $300,000 and 
$400,000 a year, those over $1 million, $2 million, or $1 billion a 
year, in order to pay for that tax cut, some of those people are going 
to get back a million dollars a year. This President has cut back 
environmental enforcement.
  Let's take a look at the key cuts that he has put in his budget. The 
Environmental Protection Agency, a $500 million cut; the Interior 
Department, a $400 million cut. The clean energy and nuclear 
contamination cleanup--you have Dick Cheney out there saying we need 
more nuclear power. He has not even figured out a way to clean up the 
nuclear waste we have. They have cut $700 million, and they want more 
nuclear power, which is dangerous. There is a conservation program in 
the Agriculture Department. They cut that $300 million. So we see a 
total of $1.9 billion in cuts to pay for a tax cut that favors the top 
1 percent, leaving out 99 percent of the people.
  What does that really mean? What does it mean when you cut 
environmental enforcement? Let me get into that. It is very serious. 
What happens is, we are going to see fewer inspectors out in the field 
and fewer technical exports on the ground. We are going to see that the 
Federal Government will no longer be able to be a watchdog for some of 
the most serious threats to public health and the environment.
  I want to give examples because people have seen the movie ``Erin

[[Page 6023]]

Brockovich.'' We all saw what happened to people in a small town in 
California when that particular water system had an excess of chromium 
6, which is, by the way, very dangerous. It is very lethal. By the way, 
there is no Federal standard for chromium 6 in water. I have a bill 
that would place into law a Federal standard, but we hear silence from 
the Bush administration on that. Instead of looking at the new threats, 
they are taking the old threats and making them more threatening, such 
as with arsenic, by rolling back the laws.
  When the American people know about this, I think they are going to 
be very upset. You should not have to be able to afford bottled water 
in this country to be safe. You should not have to worry that your 
child is going to get cancer as a result of drinking from the water 
tap.
  Oh, they say, it costs money to clean it up. As my kids would say 
when they were young: Dah. Yes, this is so. It costs money to clean up 
an environmental problem. Do we have it? Yes, we do. Why not cap the 
tax refund people earning over $1 million will get? Every year they 
earn $1 million. Cap their tax refund. Take the money and clean up the 
water. Get the arsenic out. Help the local people.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. But, no, let's look at these priorities. The President 
wants to bring an education bill to the floor. My colleague from 
Massachusetts is our real leader in the Senate, and he is going to talk 
about it. There are some good ideas that have been carved out between 
the parties. There is not enough money behind it. It is a false 
promise.
  A kid takes a test and fails the test. What are you going to do for 
the kid? You can test him every 6 months. Why not test him every 2 
months? What good is it if there is no one available to help that child 
learn? So when the President says, ``Leave no child behind,'' where is 
the beef?
  When you look at the environmental budget--and you have to remember 
the President stood in front of some beautiful lakes and streams and 
rivers and said he was an environmentalist--how can we have prosperity 
when our environment is dirty? Yet we look at the budget, which 
includes the priorities of this President, and you see nothing but 
destruction.
  I have seen it happen in California in El Segundo. We had a refinery 
that was releasing air pollution that aggravated very badly those 
suffering from asthma. People were very sick. There was a lawsuit that 
was brought. EPA supported it. Why? They had enforcement capability.
  Chevron's own records show that it simply did not use the pollution 
control technology that was required. There was not any new innovative 
technology. It was already approved. They agreed to a huge settlement, 
one of the biggest in history. Because of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the people got help. Chevron is going to help build and operate 
a health clinic to take care of those people who experience health 
problems.
  EPA has the legal authority needed to ensure that serious violations 
are stopped and that polluters are held accountable--which can help 
deter a company from disregarding environmental protections in the 
future. EPA's legal authority and resources are most often needed in 
cases like this one, where the issues are very serious and the company 
has substantial resources. It was not until the Federal Government 
filed suit against Chevron that the company agreed to comply with the 
law.
  In another example, the United States, including EPA, Department of 
Interior, and Department of Commerce, as well as several California 
state agencies, reached settlement worth an estimated $1 billion with 
Aventis to clean-up the Iron Mountain Mine located near Redding, CA, in 
October of 2000.
  The State of California requested help from the Federal Government in 
this enormously complex case explaining that they had ``exhausted all 
practicable enforcement action against the potential defendants.''
  Prior to the settlement, this mine discharged an average of one ton 
of toxic metals per day into the Upper Sacramento River, a critical 
salmon spawning habitat and a central part of California's water 
system. As recently as 5 years ago, the site dumped the equivalent of 
150 tanker cars full of toxic metals into the Sacramento River during 
winter storms. At one point, workers had left a shovel at the site in a 
green liquid flowing from the mine and it was half eaten away over 
night.
  I have a photograph of a disposal area on the site that gives you a 
feel for just one part of the damage at this very large and complex 
site.
  This site dumped approximately one quarter of the total copper and 
zinc discharged into our nation's water from industrial and municipal 
sources throughout the United States.
  This case is another good example of the kind of cases a strong EPA 
enforcement program is needed for--sites that are large, that can 
overwhelm State programs, even in a State with a well developed and 
active environmental program like California, and sites with very large 
corporate interests involved.
  When you take a close look at EPA's past enforcement efforts you see 
who benefits from cuts in enforcement. Serious polluters can take big 
hits to their pocketbooks when they are caught. A cut in enforcement is 
worth a great deal to these violators, but enforcement cuts come at the 
expense of public health and safety as well as the environment.
  The President's proposed budget cuts the heart out of agricultural 
conservation programs, like the Wetland Reserve Program which is 
eliminated--cut from $162 million in fiscal year 2001 to $0 in fiscal 
year 2002. This program was first authorized in 1990, during the first 
Bush administration, to provide long term protection for wetlands.
  The President has collected an incredible assortment of cuts in 
environmental protection--all sources for the tax cut that fails to 
take into account the priorities of the American people, like 
conservation and environmental protection. Before deciding on what the 
``right size'' of the tax cut should be, the President should consider 
the impacts of these cuts. California provides some valuable examples 
of the conservation benefits we will lose if the President's budget 
cuts are implemented.
  The Wetland Reserve Program in California has helped restore a 
portion of the 4.5 million acres of wetlands lost to agricultural 
conversion and development in our State. In addition to providing 
habitat for migratory birds, other wetlands restoration benefits 
include improvement of water quality, flood control, sediment abatement 
and recharge of groundwater. California is the primary path of the 
``Pacific Flyway''--approximately 20 percent of all waterfowl pass 
through California's Central Valley. At the present time, the federal 
Wetland's Reserve Program, zeroed out in the President's budget, is the 
largest wetland protection program in California.
  More than 60,000 acres to date have been protected in this program in 
California. There are more than 100 applicants on a waiting list to 
protect and restore their agricultural lands. One of the strongest 
parts of the program are the partnerships with not-for-profit 
organizations like California Waterfowl and the Nature Conservancy, as 
well as the private landowners themselves.
  I have a photograph of one of the successful restorations 
accomplished by a conservation easement under the Wetland Reserve 
Program. The site is in Colusa County, CA and was enrolled in the 
Conservation Reserve Program in 1992. It is approximately 195 acres of 
seasonal wetlands that provides both winter and brood habitat for 
migrating and nesting waterfowl, shorebirds, migratory songbirds, and 
other wildlife. This easement is part of a 1,000-acre complex of 
wetlands and upland nesting habitat adjacent to the Sacramento River 
and lies in the middle of the largest migratory waterfowl corridor in 
North America. It is owned by the Audubon Society and acts as a 
sanctuary for wildlife.

[[Page 6024]]

  Given the value and community support for agriculture conservation 
programs, I simply cannot see how the President can justify eliminating 
these kinds of programs to increase his tax cut.
  Mr. President, let me sum up. We have a tax cut that was pledged as a 
campaign promise 2 years ago because Steve Forbes was in a debate with 
George Bush and said: I am for this $1.4 trillion tax cut. Times have 
changed. The economy has turned around since George Bush has become 
President. We have problems. People are not optimistic about the future 
of this country.
  What does that mean? It means that a sensible person--this is my 
view--would sit back and say: I want to do this, and it is on my 
agenda, but maybe I can't do it all at once. Maybe I will cut it in 
half. Maybe I am going to invest in the people, invest in children, so 
that we have an afterschool program for every child, so that we have 
safe drinking water for every child, so that we know people are not 
going to get sick from air pollution.
  We talk about our kids. Every one of us cares about kids. That is one 
of the reasons we are Senators. Do you know the leading cause of 
admissions in hospitals for children is asthma? They miss school. So 
you have to connect the dots. If you take out massive sums of money 
that you are going to transfer to the top 1 percent of income earners, 
forgetting 99 percent--everyone else--really, you have given 43 percent 
of the tax cut to the people in the highest income, and then you say 
you do not have any money to enforce the Clean Air Act or the Clean 
Water Act. You roll back the laws on arsenic. You take away the money 
to clean up nuclear contamination, while you are calling for more 
nuclear plants. You bring out an education bill that is so short of 
money that it is an empty promise and an unfunded mandate for our 
States. It is an unfunded mandate because we are forcing them to test, 
and yet we do not have enough to help those children.
  Connect the dots. If you build a budget around an unrealistic, 
dangerous tax cut, it is going to take us back to deficits. You are not 
going to be able to pay down the debt. You are not going to be able to 
do the basics for our children. You are not going to be able to clean 
up the environment. And you have a problem. It is no wonder this 
economy is a little at sea, because this budget does not add up and it 
does not make sense.
  Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

                          ____________________