[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6345-6346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                REVIEWING THE PRESIDENT'S FIRST 100 DAYS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 100th day of the 
Bush presidency, we have seen history made. President Bush just may 
have compiled the worst environmental record in the shortest time of 
any President ever.
  Let us run through the milestone of the Bush administration's 
environmental policy: Repealed the arsenic

[[Page 6346]]

standard; unilaterally declared the Kyoto agreement on global warming 
dead; abandoned a campaign pledge seconded by his EPA administrator to 
reduce carbon dioxide emissions; supported drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  And the manner in which the Bush White House has executed its 
environmental policy makes matters even worse. The President, who 
repeatedly claimed during his campaign that the previous administration 
had failed to author a consistent principled energy policy, seems to be 
making environmental policy based on no principle at all, but rather on 
the basis of what he can get away with at the behest of the oil 
companies, at the behest of the mining companies, at the behest of the 
chemical companies.
  It is no secret that the Bush administration owes these big polluters 
for the President's election last year, and they are cashing in their 
chips fast.
  The White House even seems to be disregarding the advice of its own 
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Christie Todd Whitman. 
Earlier this year, Administrator Whitman publicly acknowledged the 
issue of global warming and said that President Bush would honor his 
campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. She 
recommended by memo that he do so, only to be publicly rebuked. It 
seems Administrator Whitman was told, along with the rest of us, that 
President Bush was simply abandoning his campaign pledge.
  Then, earlier this week, Whitman was publicly rebuked again by her 
boss. Just 2 days ago, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer appeared to chide 
the EPA administrator for speaking in ``confusion'' Sunday when she 
announced that a White House energy task force would not recommend oil 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. He clarified 
that Vice President Cheney's task force would in fact recommend that 
oil drilling be allowed in the Refuge after all.
  When big oil talks, this administration listens. It is no big 
surprise, considering Vice President Cheney as an oil executive last 
year, in 1 year as an oil executive, made $36 million.
  Strangely, it now seems possible that Christine Todd Whitman, not 
necessarily a great friend of the environment when she was Governor of 
New Jersey, Whitman may become the lone administration official willing 
to occasionally, occasionally oppose the naked assault on the 
environment.
  As cochair of the Water Infrastructure Caucus in the House, the Bush 
administration decision that has irked me most is his weakening of the 
arsenic standard. Those of us who pushed for a stronger, safer new 
arsenic standard during a 5-year administrative process know that EPA's 
January decision ordering arsenic levels in America's drinking water be 
reduced, strengthened, if you will to 10 parts per billion, was quite 
simply the right thing to do.
  EPA took this action in response to a National Academy of Science 
report, not a partisan group, not an ideological group, a scientific 
group, which recommended that the 1942 standard of 50 parts per billion 
be reduced ``as promptly as possible.''
  Arsenic's toxic properties have been common knowledge for a long 
time. Two hundred years ago, Napoleon's death was attributed by some to 
arsenic poisoning at the hands of the British. In 1942, there was 
sufficient concern about the dangers of arsenic in our country for a 50 
parts per billion standard to be put into place. But during the last 5 
years, in response to the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA asked the 
National Academy of Science to specifically investigate the danger 
posed by smaller quantities of arsenic.
  The Academy produced reams of evidence that arsenic is not only a 
toxic, which we all knew, but is a potent carcinogen that causes 
bladder cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, and has also been linked to 
kidney and liver cancer, birth defects and reproductive problems. 
Newborn babies and small children are at the greatest risk of health 
problems from the arsenic in water.
  By adopting an updated standard, the U.S. would not be leading the 
developing world, but joining it. Our allies in Europe and Great 
Britain and in Japan had already put into place arsenic standards to 
protect the public's health.
  In the face of all this evidence, the Bush administration still put 
the new drinking water standard on hold. Score another win for 
America's largest corporations.
  In my home State of Ohio, 137,000 residents may be drinking water 
with arsenic levels higher than the standard recommended by the World 
Health Organization. This standard puts the U.S. on the same levels as 
India, Bangladesh, Bolivia, and China.
  When you look at the President's campaign finance reports, you see 
the reason. In the last election, mining companies gave $5 million to 
Republicans, the chemical industry gave $10 million. We ask the 
President to reconsider.

                          ____________________