Political Quotes

Jim Sensenbrenner: I rise in support of the Kleczka- Sensenbrenner amendment. This amendment would prohibit the EPA from using funds to…

On the recordSeptember 9, 1999
I rise in support of the Kleczka- Sensenbrenner amendment. This amendment would prohibit the EPA from using funds to promulgate a final rule on drinking water standards for radium that is not based on sound science. In 1991, the EPA proposed a standard for radium in drinking water of 20 pico curries per liter (pCi/L). However, the EPA now intends to mandate a far more stringent level of 5 pCi/L. This apparently arbitrary restriction was recommended before proper scientific evidence to support it was gathered. To defend this restriction, the EPA cites a study on airborne radon by the National Research Council as supporting evidence that radium in drinking water beyond 5 pCi/L may have negative health effects despite the fact that the authors of this study state that their work did not consider the effects of carcinogens other than radon, including radium. Promoting regulations that are not based on sound science is becoming a pattern at the EPA. The Agency has mandated that parts of the country use reformulated gasoline, including gasoline with the additive MTBE. MTBE pollutes ground and surface water supplies rendering it unusable for drinking water. Recently, a National Research Council report found that oxygenates, including MTBE do little to clean up our air. An EPA Blue Ribbon Panel found that MTBE is seriously damaging our nation's water. Judging by these reports, the EPA has done serious damage to our water, while doing very little for our air.
Said by
Jim Sensenbrenner
Republican · Wisconsin

Editor's note · Context

Discussing the Kleczka-Sensenbrenner amendment regarding EPA drinking water standards.

Share

More from Jim Sensenbrenner

Dec 10, 2019

the chairman and those on his side of the aisle are dead-wrong on all of the issues that we have been debating.

congress.gov
Jul 28, 2020

Wouldn't that be up to somebody on the other side of the issue to say that this is not proven?

congress.gov
Dec 10, 2019

I think it is very obvious that there was no treason or bribery alleged here.

congress.gov

Other voices in this conversation