I respect Shaun Mullen, one of my co-bloggers here at TMV. He’s an exceptionally good writer, and generally, he’s a sharp, critical thinker. That said, I disagree with his take on Christine Todd Whitman, relative to her role at the EPA in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Hence, I’m compelled to respond, but let me be clear: This is not an attack on Shaun, only a difference of opinion, an alternative view, on the matter at hand.
The attention being paid now to this topic, nearly six years after those awful events, was prompted by a hearing held yesterday before a House Subcommittee, a hearing at which former Governor and EPA Administrator Whitman testified.
On the second page of this post, I’ve provided the entire text of Whtiman’s statement to the Subcommittee yesterday, which was provided to me by Whitman’s staff. I’d encourage anyone and everyone interested in this matter to read that statement, all of it, and thus begin the process of separating fact from fiction, conjecture from reality.
In the interest of full disclosure, I would remind readers that I’m collaborating with the Republican Leadership Council, a group of moderates attempting to reform the Republican party, returning it to a focus on its root principles of limited government and maximum liberty. Gov. Whitman is a co-leader of that group.
I have also read Gov. Whitman’s 2005 book, It’s My Party Too, wherein she spells out the philosophies, the blueprint, of what GOP reform should involve. So yes, I’m a fan of Gov. Whitman’s. Moreover, as will be clear to anyone who reads her book, despite her serving in the Bush administration for a short two years, she is not “one of them.” She’s a realist and I’m confident most of the readers of this site would find her positions thoroughly compelling and reasonable.
I also happen to believe Gov. Whitman is one of the good people. Perfect? No. None of us are. But she does seem to be one of that rare breed of honest politicians who do the best they can, with integrity, in difficult circumstances.
That said, despite my appreciation for her and what she stands for, I would be the first to line up and point an accusing finger at Gov. Whitman if there was evidence that she deliberately misled the people of New York or went out of her way to hide vital information. There is no such evidence. In fact, just the opposite: Among the steps she took at EPA after 9/11 was making public all of the NYC test data compiled by the EPA.
Finally, if you don’t have time to read Gov. Whitman’s entire statement on the next page, at the very least, I hope you’ll consider the following excerpt.
Statements that EPA officials made after 9/11 were based on the judgment of experienced environmental and health professionals at EPA, OSHA and the CDC who had analyzed the test data that thirteen different agencies were collecting in Lower Manhattan. I do not recall any EPA scientists or experts who were responsible for reviewing this data ever advising me that the test data from Lower Manhattan showed that the air or water posed long-term health risks for the general public.
With respect to the immediate area where the towers fell, however, the data revealed, and we publicly reported, that the air was different than the air in the rest of Manhattan. As these charts show, in the weeks following the attacks, EPA officials repeatedly warned of the risks to workers at Ground Zero and noted the difference between the air quality at the site and the air in the rest of New York. I and other EPA officials publicly urged rescue and recovery workers to wear the protective gear that EPA had secured for their use at Ground Zero. The EPA also advised workers at Ground Zero of the proper washing procedures for their clothes and equipment.
In fact, on September 11th, only hours after the attack, EPA officials prepared this flyer for distribution by FEMA to rescue and recovery workers at the site. As you can see, Mr. Chairman, the flyer informed workers of the risks of asbestos exposure caused by the collapse and cautioned workers to use protective equipment including appropriate eyeglasses, respirators and protective clothing. It also urged proper cleaning procedures for clothing and equipment. It’s utterly false then for EPA critics to assert that I or others at the Agency set about to mislead New Yorkers and rescue workers.
Following is the full, un-edited text of Gov. Whitman’s prepared remarks yesterday, provided to me by her staff.
SUBCOMMITTEE OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 25, 2007
Mr. Chairman & Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. It has been nearly six years since two planes flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about the friends we all lost, and the grief, despair, and helplessness we felt as a nation.
It is important to remember that many of the EPA personnel saw the planes hit knowing they had friends and relatives in those buildings. Yet, within hours of those attacks, EPA officials were on site collecting test data on potential environmental contamination in order to assist New York City and the public.
In the early days, EPA officials were monitoring for contamination around Ground Zero without the benefit of electricity, surrounded by firefighting crews and in the midst of desperate rescue operations. They deserve our respect and our appreciation.
On September 11th the President issued the declaration of emergency triggering the Federal Response Plan, which assigned lead federal authority to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA then charged EPA with the responsibility of supporting the City’s response to any discharge of hazardous materials as a result of the attacks. EPA immediately began collecting air, water and bulk dust samples for testing. By 2003, EPA had taken over 25,000 test samples, consisting of nearly 227,000 individual measurements of almost 700 different contaminants.
The EPA also performed other emergency response functions such as removal of hazardous waste, monitoring environmental conditions at landfills receiving debris from the World Trade Center, assisting the FBI in the recovery of evidence and remains, as well as constructing and operating wash stations near Ground Zero for both vehicles and personnel. Within days of the attack, EPA took the initiative to secure critical protective gear for rescue and recovery personnel and, in all, provided them with over 22,000 respirators, 13,000 safety glasses, and 1,000 hard hats.
After I left the Agency in 2003, the Inspector General confirmed that the EPA fulfilled its mandate to support New York City and while understandably finding areas for improvement, she publicly stated that “EPA did a really good job.â€
Mr. Chairman, I fully appreciate that the events of 9/11 touch raw emotions. But I am disappointed at the misinformation, innuendo and outright falsehoods that have characterized the public discussion about EPA in the aftermath of the terrorists’ attacks.
EPA’s most extreme critics have alleged that I knowingly misled New Yorkers and the workers at Ground Zero about the safety risks associated with environmental contamination. This destructive and incendiary charge was investigated by the EPA’s Inspector General who confirmed in her 2003 report that we did not conceal any of our test data from the public. In fact, within days of the 9/11 attacks, I authorized EPA to post all of its test data — all of it — on a public website. I did so precisely because I wanted to be as transparent to the public as possible.
Statements that EPA officials made after 9/11 were based on the judgment of experienced environmental and health professionals at EPA, OSHA and the CDC who had analyzed the test data that thirteen different agencies were collecting in Lower Manhattan. I do not recall any EPA scientists or experts who were responsible for reviewing this data ever advising me that the test data from Lower Manhattan showed that the air or water posed long-term health risks for the general public.
With respect to the immediate area where the towers fell, however, the data revealed, and we publicly reported, that the air was different than the air in the rest of Manhattan. As these charts show, in the weeks following the attacks, EPA officials repeatedly warned of the risks to workers at Ground Zero and noted the difference between the air quality at the site and the air in the rest of New York. I and other EPA officials publicly urged rescue and recovery workers to wear the protective gear that EPA had secured for their use at Ground Zero. The EPA also advised workers at Ground Zero of the proper washing procedures for their clothes and equipment.
In fact, on September 11th, only hours after the attack, EPA officials prepared this flyer for distribution by FEMA to rescue and recovery workers at the site. As you can see, Mr. Chairman, the flyer informed workers of the risks of asbestos exposure caused by the collapse and cautioned workers to use protective equipment including appropriate eyeglasses, respirators and protective clothing. It also urged proper cleaning procedures for clothing and equipment. It’s utterly false then for EPA critics to assert that I or others at the Agency set about to mislead New Yorkers and rescue workers.
Mr. Chairman, the grief of 9/11 remains with us. Like many others, I lost personal friends that day. I suspect there will be a lot of talk at this hearing about blame and responsibility for what happened on September 11th and its aftermath. Let’s be clear: there are people to blame. The terrorists who attacked the United States, not the men and women at all levels of government who worked heroically to protect this country.
Of course, there are lessons to be learned from the extraordinary challenges of 9/11. I welcome a constructive dialogue on those lessons that is undertaken in good faith. I came here today in that spirit, Mr. Chairman, and I trust that the Subcommittee has as well.
Thank you. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you or the Members may have.