[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 152 (Monday, October 27, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13237-S13251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF MICHAEL O. LEAVITT TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2
o'clock having arrived, the Senate will proceed to executive session to
resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael O. Leavitt, of
Utah, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30
shall be divided as follows: 1 hour 15 minutes under the control of the
chairman of the committee, Mr. Inhofe or his designee; 2 hours and 15
minutes under the control of the ranking member, Mr. Jeffords, or his
designee. The last 20 minutes are equally divided between the chairman
and ranking member, with the final 10 minutes under the control of the
chairman.
Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of Governor Mike Leavitt to be
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I am supporting
his confirmation because we need a leader at the Agency. The EPA needs
to be represented during Cabinet meetings and be a strong advocate for
a budget that will allow the agency to enforce the environmental
protections our citizens deserve. I am very concerned about the morale
of the employees at the Agency. They are dedicated to environmental
protection. Yet the direction the administration has taken on
protecting the environment is troubling.
The record of the Environmental Protection Agency under this
administration is abysmal. We have watched this administration roll
back environmental law and regulations day after day, week after week,
and month after month. They have been dismantling our environmental law
and the protections that our citizens have come to expect and, I
believe, deserve from their Government.
This administration has allowed the sale of properties contaminated
with PCBs, exposing our citizens to highly toxic chemicals. The
administration has limited a State's decision for allowing offshore oil
drilling on its own coastline. This administration has allowed the fund
that pays for cleaning up abandoned toxic Superfund sites across this
country to go bankrupt. This administration has omitted an entire
section on climate change from a White House report on the state of the
Nation's environment, despite convincing evidence to the contrary. This
administration has decided not to classify carbon dioxide as a
pollutant.
This administration has forced the Environmental Protection Agency to
``add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones'' relating to
air quality standards surrounding the Ground Zero site following the
September 11 attacks.
This administration has proposed rules that would narrow the waters
protected over the last 30 years under the Clean Water Act. This
administration has allowed major polluters to avoid installing modern
control equipment in the New Source Review rule, devastating years of
progress under the Clean Air Act. This is a life-threatening decision.
Many of these decisions have been made with little input from the
people who will be most affected by them and must implement them.
As ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I
and other members of our committee have oversight responsibility for
the Environmental Protection Agency. Yet I do not believe we can carry
out that responsibility without the cooperation of the administration
and I, for one, have not received that cooperation. I have made
repeated requests of the EPA to provide information and have not
received it.
For example, I have asked for the analysis of the effects that the
New Source Review rules will have on the environmental and public
health. I have not received it, and the EPA will not collect
information to answer my questions. The lack of transparency in this
administration's decisionmaking and lack of cooperation with Congress
troubles me. This is particularly true in the case of the New Source
Review. According to a new GAO report, it appears that administration
officials have misled Congress and intentionally undermined ongoing
enforcement cases. I am hopeful that Governor Leavitt will have much
more luck than Governor Whitman did with the White House. EPA needs to
be an independent
[[Page S13238]]
agency, as Congress and President Nixon intended. It cannot be a rubber
stamp for the polluters' lobbyists and should not be a political lapdog
for the White House.
I am hopeful Governor Leavitt can make an improvement in White House
environmental policies because I find it terribly hard to believe that
the President would want to continue diminishing his father's
environmental legacy.
However, it is not an auspicious sign that the Senate takes up the
Governor's nomination on the very day that the Bush administration has
formally committed the single greatest rollback on clean air since
there has been a Federal Clean Air Act. I am referring to the final NSR
rule being published today that allows the dirtiest, oldest powerplants
to continue polluting forever. This is a life-and-death matter, a
serious health matter.
I hope against hope that by supporting Governor Leavitt we might
bring some accountability and rationality to this White House, and he
can improve its environmental record. But more and more, I think an
election will be necessary before we can see real and positive change
on the environment at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The distinguished Senator
from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
I rise today to speak about an important vote that will take place a
little less than 4 hours from now. At 5:30 this evening, the Members of
this body will have an opportunity to invoke cloture on the nomination
of Governor Mike Leavitt to become the new Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and to end the months of delay and
Presidential politics that have marred his nomination.
Tonight's vote is more than a mere procedural formality. It is more
than a simple motion. It is a vote about leadership and the health of
our natural surroundings. It is a vote that will show the American
people we are serious about protecting the environment, about providing
the much-needed leadership the EPA has been missing since the departure
of the former Administrator.
Every ship needs a captain. Every plane needs a pilot. As elected
officials representing the greatest people in the greatest Nation, we
must provide that captain, that pilot for our Nation's chief
environmental department. We can begin by voting tonight to invoke
cloture. The politics of delay must end tonight. President Bush has
nominated a very worthy candidate to take the helm at the Environmental
Protection Agency.
I have learned that experience makes a difference. Perhaps no other
qualification that Governor Leavitt possesses is as important to me as
his experience in the real world. As president and chief executive
officer of the Leavitt Group, he has paid taxes and made payroll.
Through his business experience, he learned the impact of government
regulations on commerce and industry. Moving beyond his time as a
private entrepreneur and into the realm of public service, Governor
Leavitt is the country's longest serving Governor and has a long
history of experience and accomplishments that make him eminently
qualified for the position of Administrator. The confirmation of the
Administrator must be a top priority for all who care about the
environment.
I challenge my colleagues to focus on the achievements of our
national environmental policy and not on penalties and politics. We
cannot ignore the fact that the air we breathe today is cleaner than it
was 4 years ago and that the water our children drink is more safe
today than ever before. But there is a danger lurking in the
formulation and implementation of our national environmental policy.
Extremist measures that impose strict mandates and demand compliance
through arbitrary means and unclear science could undermine the very
institutes of our democracy and of our market economy.
Governor Leavitt knows that our system of environmental regulations,
environmental mandates and administrative and judicial rulings, work
together to protect our most precious resources, and have helped spur
environmental recovery in many areas. But he is also aware that these
same layers of laws have also created tremendous burdens for
municipalities, businesses and the ongoing development and maintenance
of our public infrastructure.
The evolution of environmental rules and regulations that control so
many aspects of life must be realistic goals that are established
through a course of open deliberation and sound science. The impact EPA
has on individual lives is real, not fictitious. New laws and
enforcement decisions cannot be taken lightly.
I am pleased that President Bush's approach has been one of reform--
changing command-and-control mandates to innovative, market-based
approaches that utilize cutting edge technology to bolster
environmental benefits. I know that this type of strong, principled
leadership will continue into the future. We must not simply wipe the
slate clean and sweep away basic environmental rules, but we can--we
must--develop an environmental agenda that protects private property
rights while balancing environmental achievement with the need for
continued economic progress.
Governor Leavitt is the one person who has the intellect, the
courage, and the right philosophical temperament to get this job done.
Governor Leavitt hails from the western United States. Perhaps no other
geographic region in the country has felt the heavy hand of
environmental regulation more than the public land States of the West--
be it in the form of forthcoming EPA mercury standards or the
Department of the Interior's Endangered Species Act.
Many Members of this body do not understand the impact that Federal
land ownership has on a State and on its people, and that includes the
much publicized battle over RS 2477. At some point today, I have no
doubt that opponents may try to attack the Governor on his approach to
solving this long standing Federal land issue. As a fellow westerner
whose State is also affected by the dispute, I want to clear up the
scare tactics and half-truths used by the extremist groups in an
attempt to undermine the nominee's credibility.
Governor Leavitt has never been involved in secret deals and behind-
closed-doors shenanigans to destroy public lands. Instead, Governor
Leavitt believes the public is best served through negotiation rather
than litigation. His actions to resolve a 30-year dispute over
ownership rights of rural county roads resulted in the enactment of a
reliable mechanism that will preserve and promote the interests of the
public. This is just plain common sense.
Governor Leavitt understands the complicated web of environmental
rules and the impact that they have on health and property. As a
Governor, he has worked hard to increase the well-being of the people
in his State, and he has worked diligently to improve the state of the
environment. Governor Leavitt understands the fundamental need to
protect the environment from irresponsible actors. Just as important,
though, he understands the need to protect the environment through
policies and programs that generate results and that create incentives
to improve land, water and air quality, not just penalties and fines.
He knows that heavy-handed action is not nearly as important as the
results that can be achieved through cooperation and collaboration.
The development of such enlibra principles has received a bipartisan
endorsement from the National Governor's Association and deserves a
great deal of attention. Governor Leavitt, along with the Governor of
Oregon, was one of the pioneers of a concept that they dubbed enlibra.
This concept, derived from Latin root words and meaning ``to move
toward balance,'' promotes the type of balanced environmental
stewardship that I have been talking about and includes eight
principles that help on this course. Governor Leavitt has done a great
deal to clean up both the air and water and to protect thousands of
acres of premier public lands in the State of Utah.
In just one example of how he has worked for cleaner air, Governor
Leavitt is a co-chair of the Western Regional Air Partnership, also
known as WRAP. WRAP is a partnership of 13 States, 13 tribes and 3
Federal agencies. This organization worked to formulate a regulatory
commitment to reduce SOX levels by 50-70 percent by
[[Page S13239]]
the year 2040. But, they didn't just formulate regulations. They also
put together a plan to help those affected by the regulations,
providing guidance on how to reach these aggressive clean air goals.
Under Governor Leavitt's leadership, Utah now meets all Federal air
quality standards.
But its not just the air that is improved. Seventy-three percent of
Utah's streams currently meet Federal water quality standards, compared
to 59 percent 10 years ago. This is a remarkable improvement since
Governor Leavitt took office.
In what undoubtedly will be a common theme today as other members
come to the floor to show their support for Governor Leavitt, I would
like to point out that our Nation lives today in a cleaner, healthier
environment, far more clean than it was when President Bush first took
office. In the last 30 years, water quality has improved and emissions
of the six principal air pollutants have been cut 48 percent. This
progress comes even as the country has experienced a 164 percent
increase in gross domestic product, a 42 percent increase in energy
consumption, and a 155 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled. This
improvement has occurred over the course of 34 years, 22 of which came
under the leadership of Republican administrations.
The environment is not a partisan issue. Success comes through
partnership and the desire to take the responsible, common-sense
action. As mentioned, the most recent EPA data shows that sulfur
dioxide emissions from power plants were 10.2 million tons in 2002, 9
percent lower than in 2000 and 41 percent lower than 1980.
NOx emissions from power plants are also lower, measuring
4.5 million tons in 2002. This is a 13 percent reduction from 2000 and
a 33 percent decline from 1990 emissions levels. In Colorado, the Bush
administration's efforts to clean-up the Shattuck, Vasquez Boulevard
and Rocky Flats sites deserve many thanks. The administration continues
to prove its commitment to the people of Colorado through responsible
stewardship and active protection.
Governor Leavitt's accomplishments are not just in the environmental
field, however. His environmental principles are getting the most
attention and, given the current debate, rightfully so. However, I
believe that Governor Leavitt has had other accomplishments in the
State of Utah that I believe speak to the kind of person and leader
that he is. In the area of education, funding for public education has
increased by $762 million in 10 years between fiscal years 1994 and
2004. The number of teachers in the classrooms has increased, teacher
pay has increased, student-to-teacher ratios have decreased and,
perhaps at least in part to the three previous factors, teacher
retention has increased. Student SAT scores, and student scores on
other national tests, have also increased steadily. Initiatives
introduced or promoted by Governor Leavitt have increased the number of
school options as well. Students wanting to attend Utah public schools
now have more options, such as: charter schools, high-tech schools and
an electronic high school, to enable them to find the educational
method that fits them best.
Utah schools are also second in the Nation in Internet accessibility.
Thanks to an initiative called Technology 2000, 99% of Utah's schools
have access to the Internet.
Higher education funding has also increased. Again, between fiscal
years 1994 and 2004, higher ed funding increased slightly over 73%, a
total of $379 million. Student enrollment has increased, as has the
enrollment of students in engineering, math and computer sciences.
Numerous plans to improve the lives and health of families and
children have been implemented. Between the years of 1992 and 2001,
immunization rates rose by 73 recent, teen smoking rates fell by 32
percent, and teen pregnancy rates fell by 33 percent.
Under HealthPrint, a Leavitt plan to increase the number of State
residents who are covered by insurance, the numbers of insured persons
increased by 404,000. Of these 72,000 were children. Governor Leavitt
was also a leader in the push to get us here in Congress to authorize
the Children's Health Insurance plan, or CHIP. The numbers of children
covered by CHIP in Utah continue to rise.
These remarkable achievements could only have been accomplished by
someone who is thoughtful and deliberative, someone who is able to
consider all relevant information and make the decision that will be
best for the greatest number of people. The strong mark of success the
Governor has built in Utah over the past 11 years bodes well for his
success at the helm of EPA--an agency that employs 18,000 people across
the country and an agency that needs a leader like Leavitt. The
commitment President Bush has made to improving the environment is
strong, clear and unquestionable. Mr. Leavitt will ably serve the
people of the United States as he fulfills his oath to meet these
goals.
I look forward to this evening's vote and to the confirmation of
Governor Leavitt. Let's end this hold-up and do just that.
Mr. President, this nomination should move ahead, and I ask my
colleagues to join me in voting for cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who
yields time?
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I
ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided
proportionally between the two sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Bennett.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Utah is
recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, thank you.
I thank the Senator from Colorado for the opportunity to speak about
Utah's Governor. In a way, I hope he will soon not be Utah's Governor
because he has been nominated by the President to be the head of the
EPA. On the other hand, we will be sorry to lose him as Utah's Governor
because he has done a truly outstanding job. Many of his qualifications
have already been discussed here. As I did in the hearing, I would like
to speak of him a little bit personally so Members of the Senate can
get an understanding of who he is and what qualifications he brings to
this particular assignment.
Governor Leavitt and I first became well acquainted when we served
together on a strategic planning group formulated to come up with a
plan for the Utah State Board of Education. At the time, we were both
considerably younger. He particularly looked quite young. He has the
advantage of looking younger than he really is. As the Presiding
Officer can relate, those of us who are bald look like we are 60
regardless of how old we may be. That is a disadvantage when you are 30
or 40. It becomes an advantage when you get beyond 60 because people
think you are younger. Governor Leavitt, with a full head of hair,
struck me as, frankly, quite a young man when we first got acquainted.
I thought, What is somebody so young and, by implication, inexperienced
doing on this particular committee? As soon as he opened his mouth and
we started having a conversation, it became very clear what he was
doing on that committee; he was very bright; he was extremely well
informed; he had many exciting ideas about what ought to be done with
respect to Utah's schools and Utah's education.
I derived a great sense of respect for him in that situation and said
to people: This is a young man who has a great future. This is a young
man who will be doing important things for the State.
Then he showed up in my office one day and said he wanted to talk to
me. When I asked why, he said, Well, I am planning to run for Governor
and I am here to get your support. I said, Well, I am not going to be
able to give you my support for Governor because I am planning to run
for the Senate, and it is appropriate that I not endorse any candidate
for Governor and I understand it is appropriate that you not endorse
any candidate for the Senate. But we began our campaigns together in
1992 and went through the gauntlet
[[Page S13240]]
of conventions and primaries that is part of the Utah political scene.
I watched him in that situation. I watched him grow. I watched him
flourish. I watched him get engaged in the battle of ideas and emerge
from a second-place position to the first-place position where he won
the nomination, became the candidate, and then in a three-way race for
Governor won the governorship.
He started out with those same kinds of ideas and energy and
excitement I had seen when we were talking about school issues some
years before. He has been very inventive as Governor. He has come up
with ideas that, frankly, a lot of people scoffed at that have come to
fruition. He is the driving force, for example, behind the creation of
the Western Governors University--a virtual university on line where
people can and now have received degrees and graduate degrees that have
allowed them to improve their economic standing and their professional
standing. Not only has he brought the Western Governors University from
an idea to fruition in a very short period of time, but he has also
seen to it that the caliber of the material offered by the Western
Governors University is of sufficiently high status that it is now
fully accredited. A degree from the Western Governors University
carries the same accreditation as a degree from the University of Utah
or the University of Kansas or, for that matter, the private
universities such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, whatever. This is the
brainchild and the product of the energy of Michael Leavitt--an idea of
taking something that is new in the field and turning it into a final
product.
I cite that because I think what we need at the Environmental
Protection Agency is someone who has some creative ideas and the drive
to try something new and see it through to fruition. That is Michael
Leavitt. He is the perfect person for this kind of assignment.
I talked to him when the newspapers first broke the idea that he
might receive this position and said, Should I call the White House on
your behalf and weigh in to say I think you would be good for this job?
He said, No, don't bother. He said, They have talked to me about it and
I have told them I don't have any interest. I said, Why don't you have
any interest? I was thinking that was probably a good idea on his part,
given the difficulties of this position. He suggested the reason he
didn't have any interest was because it seemed to him people were
looking for a business-as-usual administrator of the EPA, someone who
would continue to go through the motions of previous administrators who
went through the motions of the administrators who preceded them. No.
He said, I told them if you are thinking about doing something else and
breaking some new ground, then call me back. But if all you want to do
is what you have been doing, I don't have any interest.
That is a very dangerous thing for a nominee to say because it leaves
the door open for them to come back after you have refused the
position. Obviously, the folks in the White House--particularly the
President himself--decided they liked the idea of someone who would
attempt to do something a little differently. They liked the idea of
someone who would try to break new ground, who would use the experience
he had had in breaking new ground in State government to see if there
could be some changes for the better at the EPA.
The President himself got hold of Michael Leavitt. It wasn't just
someone in the personnel office. These two who had served together as
Governors sat down and talked about it. I am not privy to that
conversation, but I am sure Governor Leavitt made the same kind of
pitch he described to me. If all you want, Mr. President, is business
as usual at EPA, I am not your man. But if you are interested in
breaking some new ground and doing things a little differently, then I
might consider it.
I am assuming that was the conversation which took place between the
former Governor of Texas and the then existing Governor of the State of
Utah. Whatever the conversation, Michael Leavitt has agreed to take on
this assignment.
I have talked to him since he made that agreement. I am delighted
with his attitude. He is excited about it. He is determined to view it
as a challenge, he is determined to view it as an opportunity, and he
is determined to go at it with the same vigor and with the same
enthusiasm he went at his new assignment as Governor of the State of
Utah.
I can think of no better set of qualifications for someone to have in
tackling the position at EPA than the background Governor Leavitt has
and the attitude and sense of challenge he possesses. For that reason,
I was delighted the EPA committee reported this nomination by a 16-2
margin, indicating that even though there are people who had serious
reservations about the past performance of EPA, they were willing to
give Governor Leavitt a chance to show us what will happen with respect
to the future.
I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to recognize the
background, the enthusiasm, and the attitude this particular nominee
has. It would be a great shame if we were to allow this nomination to
be derailed because of people's concern about previous administrations
at EPA. This nomination, as with all appointments, has to do not so
much with the past as with the future.
This nomination has to do with the job Michael Leavitt can do, not
with the job that some other Administrator may have done. So I am very
hopeful that in this Chamber we will invoke cloture, we will shut off
debate and allow Michael Leavitt to have a vote.
If he has a straight up-or-down vote, I think we will see much the
same kind of margin we saw in committee with the 16-to-2 vote in favor
of reporting him to the Senate. I am hoping for a 70- to 80-, even 90-
Member positive vote in the Chamber to give this young man from Utah an
opportunity to show the country what he can do in this position.
The people from Utah have seen what he can do. He has maintained an
approval rating 70 to 80 percent normally through his entire period of
time as our Governor. I believe he can do the same kind of thing for
the country.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for cloture, and then, when it is
invoked, to vote for Michael Leavitt.
Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, in looking around, I do not see any
other speakers, so I would like to be recognized for whatever time I
shall consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. INHOFE. First, Madam President, I do rise in strong support--
strong support--of Mike Leavitt to be confirmed as Administrator of the
EPA. I think this vote is long overdue. But for those who have watched
this nomination closely, we have seen a spectacle that does not reflect
favorably on this institution.
Governor Michael Leavitt is a kind, courteous, and decent person.
Everyone who knows him loves him. Very rarely do you see that in
politicians--other than the Presiding Officer, of course. But everyone
seems to love Mike Leavitt. He is that kind of a person. Yet from day
one his nomination has been delayed and obstructed by partisanship and
Presidential politics.
I watched this play out with real disappointment because the process
surrounding these nominations has never succumbed to such pressures.
Today, we are going to move beyond this obstacle and show to the
American people what everyone in this debate well knows; that is,
Governor Leavitt enjoys overwhelming support from both Democrats and
Republicans.
This process, which has dragged on now for over 50 days, has been
somewhat perplexing to me because my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle have nothing but the highest praise for Governor Leavitt.
The other day my good friend, Senator Jeffords, the ranking member on
this committee, said:
First of all, it has nothing to do with the qualifications
of Mr. Leavitt. I will vote for him and I am hopeful that at
the same point I will be able to do so. I look forward to
that. I consider him a friend. I have worked with him in the
past on matters of education. The issues are not related to
his qualifications.
[[Page S13241]]
I say to my good friend from Vermont, I appreciate that testament
very much.
Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat Senator from Nebraska, who is a former
Governor who served with Mike Leavitt, wrote a strong letter of support
for Governor Leavitt. He said in his letter:
But beyond his record of achievement for the citizens of
Utah, I have also found Governor Leavitt to be easy to work
with, open to new ideas, and willing to make sensible
compromises to reach shared goals. I believe nearly
everyone--if not everyone--with whom Governor Leavitt [has]
worked in the NGA [National Governors Association] would
state they had a favorable impression of him. As we know all
too well, such a record is important for any federal
position, but particularly one such as this, where there
needs to be much coordination with our State governments. . .
.
Still quoting Democrat Senator Ben Nelson:
I wholeheartedly support Mike Leavitt's nomination to serve
as EPA Administrator. He is eminently qualified for the
position; but even more than that, he has both the
personality and the desire to be successful at the job.
As the preceding quotes show, those who have worked with Governor
Leavitt hold him in the highest regard. Those who have seen his
dedication and commitment to solving environmental problems all support
him.
Last week my committee received a letter from Governor Bill
Richardson, with whom I used to serve over in the House, the Governor
of New Mexico--another Democrat Governor. This is what he said about
Governor Leavitt:
He has worked effectively with other Governors regardless
of party. Obviously the same willingness and ability to work
collaboratively with other elected and appointed
environmental officials is crucial to the effectiveness of
any EPA Administrator.
Mike Leavitt is a consensus builder and can bring people together.
Again, these are things that Democrats say about him. Many have heard
me recount the details of Governor Leavitt's long distinguished career
in public service, but considering the circumstances, I think they are
worth recounting again. His resume is absolutely stellar. He was the
chairman of the National Governors Association, the Republican
Governors Association, the Western Governors Association. His record on
environmental accomplishment reflects his experience. Just look at the
facts:
Utah meets all Federal air quality requirements. That is very rare.
Utah meets all Federal air quality requirements. This was not true when
Governor Leavitt was first elected. Visibility in the West has improved
dramatically, largely as a result of Governor Leavitt's service as
cochairman of the Western Regional Air Partnership and vice chairman of
the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The Commission has
made over 70 recommendations, improving visibility at 16 national parks
and wilderness areas in the Colorado plateau.
During his 11-year tenure, Governor Leavitt made great strides in
improving Utah's water. The State's watersheds are now among the
cleanest in the Nation. Thirty-seven percent of Utah's streams
currently meet Federal water quality standards compared to 59 percent
10 years ago, a 24-percent improvement since Governor Leavitt took
office 11 years ago. Currently, 60 percent of the Nation's streams meet
this standard.
I return briefly to the process behind this nomination, because I
hope we won't repeat it at any time in the future since it was
unprecedented. Let there be no question that Governor Leavitt was
subjected to a double standard. First, prior to Governor Leavitt's
hearing, the minority demanded that Governor Leavitt answer nearly 100
prehearing questions. That was unprecedented.
Second, prior to his markup, committee Democrats submitted nearly 400
questions to Governor Leavitt. The Democrats submitted nearly 400
questions to Governor Leavitt. The volume, again, is unprecedented.
Let's compare this to the nomination of Carol Browner. In 1993, she
received a mere 67 questions from Republicans. Even Governor Christie
Whitman, in 2001, received approximately only 100 questions from the
Democrats. Let's look at how long it took to approve previous nominees
to head the EPA. In 1989, the first President Bush nominated William
Reilly. The Senate received his nomination on January 20. The EPW
Committee, the committee I chair, had a hearing on January 31 and then
reported him to the floor on February 2, the same day he was confirmed
by the Senate. All told, the nomination took just 13 days.
How about Carol Browner? The Senate received her nomination January
20. The EPW Committee actually had a hearing for Ms. Browner on January
11, 9 days before she was officially nominated. She was reported out by
the EPW Committee on January 19, 8 days after the hearing. She was
confirmed by the Senate on January 21. From the time of her hearing to
the day she was confirmed, just 10 days.
Governor Whitman faced a similar path. She was confirmed by the
Senate just 13 days after nomination. Let's repeat that: Bill Reilly
was 13 days; Carol Browner, 10 days; Whitman, 13 days. Governor Leavitt
has now waited 55 days. Some on the other side argue that comparisons
of timing with previous nominees is unfair. In their view those
nominations were made at the beginning of a new administration, so
there is no environmental record to judge. I find this very
interesting.
Here the other side is essentially admitting that the nomination is
about President Bush, not about Mike Leavitt because they are talking
about President Bush's record. I think that is very unfair. It has
nothing to do with Mike Leavitt. For weeks we have heard nothing about
Governor Leavitt and everything about President Bush. We have heard
that under President Bush the air is dirtier, more kids are suffering
from asthma attacks, respiratory diseases; precious lakes, rivers,
streams, and forests are more polluted, and big oil's campaign
contributions are corrupting national environmental policy.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is all false, empty
rhetoric extremist groups use to raise money. They conveniently ignore
the fact that President Bush has proposed the most aggressive
Presidential initiatives to reduce pollutants, a 70-percent reduction.
No President in history has proposed such a thing. They ignore the fact
that he introduced the landmark brownfields legislation which my friend
from Vermont and I were very active in getting through. They ignore
that according to EPA, air quality has improved since President Bush
took office.
Let me mention a couple other things since it seems to be that we
have President Bush's record in front of us as opposed to Governor
Leavitt. First, there couldn't be a better record of any President than
the current President Bush.
Greg Easterbrook, senior editor for the very liberal New Republic
magazine, not a Republican, writing for a liberal publication, writes
that ``most of the charges made against the White House are baloney,''
made for ``purposes of partisan political bashing and fund-raising.''
He also contends that ``Environmental lobbies raise money better in an
atmosphere of panic, and so they are exaggerating the case against
Bush.'' In his view, President Bush's new rules for diesel engines and
diesel fuel ``should lead to the biggest pollution reduction since the
1991 Clean Air Act amendment.'' Air pollution, he writes, continues to
decline under President Bush.
That is not a conservative Republican talking. That is not anyone
connected with this administration. That is the other side that is
normally critical of Republicans and conservatives.
I am very familiar with the Clear Skies Act. I am anxious to get the
act before the Senate and hopefully Congress will consider it, too.
That is a 70-percent reduction in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
and mercury. It represents the largest pollution reduction initiative
ever proposed by any American President.
Clear Skies uses a cap and trade system. This limits the total amount
of emissions from the utility industry and allows them to determine how
to achieve these reductions. The bill thus far has been held up by
environmental extremists who are playing politics with the issue of
CO2. It is unfortunate because this bill will provide
immediate health benefits to the American people and reduce acid rain.
Air quality has improved immensely over the last 30 years and has
continued since the Bush administration took
[[Page S13242]]
office. Clear Skies will continue that trend.
Cleaner fields and engines: This administration is a consistent
advocate of tougher controls on harmful air pollution caused by diesel
engines. The diesel rule, a rule requiring new heavy duty trucks and
buses to run cleaner, will cut harmful pollutions by 95 percent. When
fully implemented, the controls proposed in the rule will reduce 2.6
million tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxide emissions each year, and
soot or particulate matter will be reduced by 110,000 tons a year.
Diesel retrofit is a voluntary partnership program with State, local,
and industry to reduce mobile source emissions by retrofitting diesel
engines. Commitments made to retrofit over 130,000 diesel engines in
trucks, buses, locomotives, and construction equipment will eliminate
more than 200,000 tons of harmful pollution from the air.
The Clean School Bus Act USA: This new program highlights the Bush
administration's commitment to reducing environmental health risks to
kids. The program ensures that by 2010, every public school bus in
America will be cleaner by encouraging the installation of effective
emissions control systems on buses, replacing older buses with newer
ones and eliminating unnecessary school bus idling. With community,
industry and school district commitments, the program would deliver
approximately 150,000 retrofit vehicles in more than 20 school bus
programs.
Cutting emissions from nonroad, heavy-duty vehicles: This is
construction, agricultural equipment, and industrial equipment. On
April 5 of 2003, the EPA, under President Bush, issued a proposed rule
that will result in dramatic pollution reductions from nonroad, heavy-
duty diesel engines.
The nonroad program will prevent over 9,600 premature deaths, 8,300
hospitalizations, 16,000 heart attacks, 5,700 children's asthma-related
emergency room visits, 260,000 respiratory problems in children, and
nearly a million workdays due to illnesses.
Cleaner air through smart enforcement: The EPA and the Department of
Justice recently settled environmental cases by using smart enforcement
and compliance tools to address the most significant problems and
achieve the best environmental results. Settlements included: Virginia
Electric Power Company, they will spend $1.2 billion to reduce air
pollutants, along with $13.9 million to offset the impact of past
pollution activities.
The settlement with Archer Daniel Midland, which had quite a bit of
public attention, will mean installing and implementing sweeping
environmental improvements at their plants nationwide, totaling an
estimated $335 million. Also, Archer Daniel Midland will spend $6.3
million on supplemental environmental projects, including retrofitting
diesel school buses.
The ALCOA settlement commits them to installing pollution controls
and will provide $2.5 million to fund environmental projects, including
$1.75 million to the Trust for Public Lands.
Lion Oil Company will spend more than $21.5 million to install state-
of-the-art pollution control technologies throughout its refinery.
Additionally, the company will pay $348,000 in civil penalties and
spend more than $450,000 on supplemental environmental projects.
It goes on and on.
These settlements that took place under the enforcement policies of
President Bush far exceed those under the Clinton administration, in
both numbers of settlements and the amount of money involved.
On the budget, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget proposal
continues significant funding for cleaner air:
$617 million to improve air quality by meeting national ambient air
quality standards, reducing air toxics, and acid rain--up $2 million
from last year;
$326 million for the Coal Research Initiative on cleaner coal
technologies, including $150 million for the President's clean coal
power initiative. These funds will support public-private partnerships
to research efficient clean coal technologies, which we need and can
have and must have to keep America machine ready;
$7 million in new EPA funding for States to conduct air toxics
monitoring;
$7.2 billion for mass transit, up $479 million from the previous
year.
They are all up from the Clinton administration. People say President
Bush doesn't have an environmental administration. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
Federal energy score cards: Agencies documented their progress in
meeting the various requirements on score cards submitted by the Office
of Management and Budget in January 2002. The most relevant findings
include: In fiscal year 2001, 10 agencies purchased 632 gigawatt-hours
of electricity generated from renewable resources--that is what they
are always talking about--which is more than 3 times the amount
reported in fiscal year 2000.
In other words, the renewable resources reported by this
administration are 3 times the last year of the Clinton administration.
Eleven agencies implemented renewable energy projects during fiscal
year 2001, including 60 solar projects, 7 wind projects, and 9
geothermal projects.
In fiscal year 2001, agencies invested more than $130 million of
direct expenditures in energy efficiency.
The President's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal continues
significant funding for cleaner energy: $7.1 billion in tax incentives
over 10 years for investments in energy-efficiency and renewable energy
sources, including more than $3 billion for consumers to purchase
hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
A lot of criticism has come to this President, but he will push the
fuel cell program because he has a commitment to it.
One hundred fifty million dollars is in the budget for a FreedomCAR
research initiative, a new Department of Energy partnership with
automakers and researchers, with a long-term vision of hydrogen-powered
fuel cell vehicles; $1 million for the Department of Transportation to
improve fuel economy standards.
That is $940,000 more than under the Clinton administration.
Cleaner water, protecting water supplies: In response to the
terrorist acts of September 11, the Bush administration continues to
work with States and local communities to protect America's 168,000
public drinking water systems and 16,000 public waste water systems
from terrorist attacks.
You know, in the committee that I chair, Environment and Public Works
Committee, we have passed out the nuclear security bill and waste water
security, and last Thursday the Chemical Security Act. They will be
coming to the floor and they will become a reality.
Under the President's leadership, we are doing our job. We can single
out one thing the President has done that nobody else has been able to
do, which is in the area of brownfields.
Fulfilling a campaign pledge, President Bush worked with us to enact
historic, bipartisan brownfields reform legislation, which he signed on
January 11, 2002.
The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act enacted vital reforms that had been widely sought for years, giving
States and local governments greater flexibility and resources to turn
environmental eyesores into productive community assets. It reformed
important elements of the law that had discouraged private investment
in cleaning up and redeveloping brownfields.
You have brownfields in every American city. They are in the process
of being cleaned up now, thanks to the policy of this President.
This legislation will significantly increase the pace of brownfields
cleanups. President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget proposal provides
$210.7 million--more than twice the level of funding prior to the
passage of this legislation--in support of the brownfields program,
$180 million of which is for grants for States, tribes, local
communities for cleanup, site assessments, and revolving loan funds.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Trust for Public Land, and others
endorsed the administration's brownfields proposal. In fiscal year
2003, the brownfields program has solicited grant applications and is
in the process of reviewing more than 1,300 responses. The agency plans
to reward these grants by the fall of 2003.
Again, nothing in the previous administration--the Clinton
administration--even addressed brownfields. It was all done by this
President.
Madam President, it goes on and on. I think the environmental
enforcement record has been unprecedented.
[[Page S13243]]
The environmental extremists tie enforcement success to the amounts
of funds collected, legal actions initiated, and enforcement office
staffing positions, and cite a reduction of fines collected, a 40-
percent drop in criminal prosecutions, a 25-percent drop in civil
cases, and a reduction in enforcement office staff.
The success of the Bush environmental enforcement record can be
measured in both the amounts collected in civil penalties and a number
of criminal judgments, but also, and more importantly, in smart
enforcement achieving actual environmental results through enforcement
efforts focusing on significant noncompliers.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $503 million for the EPA
enforcement office. This is the largest amount ever requested for
environment enforcement, and $21 million more funding than fiscal year
2003.
The EPA's 2004 budget proposes an additional 100 positions in the
enforcement program above the administration's 2003 request.
So you can see that none of these accusations are true. It reminds me
so much of what Hitler did prior to World War II--called the big lie.
If you tell a lie and say it with conviction over and over again,
sooner or later people will believe it. I think that is what has been
happening.
Smart enforcement: Overall, in the last two fiscal years, EPA and the
Department of Justice enforcement has obtained $8 billion in
environmental remediation, state-of-the-art controls, and safeguards
through enforcement of existing laws. This is the best consecutive 2
years of enforcement of any prior administration on record, including
the Clinton administration.
In fiscal 2002, the EPA Compliance Assistance Centers provided
environmental technical assistance to more than 673,000 businesses and
individuals to help them comply with environmental laws.
Fiscal year 2002 saw a 26-percent increase of company self-
disclosures of possible environmental violations.
From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001, the EPA and the Department
of Justice enforcement nearly doubled the amount spent by violators on
pollution controls and cleanups from $2.6 billion to $4.4 billion.
The POPS Program--persistent and organic pollutants--was an agreement
the President was able to get. There are seven key types of pollutants
under this program. The 12 chemicals in the POPS treaty, including DDT,
PCBs, and dioxins, are some of the most persistent and dangerous
chemicals ever manufactured. They are known to cause cancer,
reproductive disorders, and immune system disruptions in both humans
and wildlife. We nearly lost the bald eagle because of one of these
chemicals. Because they are so mobile and accumulate in the food chain,
absent international action, they will continue to be a risk to all.
This agreement will restrict and eliminate these chemicals, including
DDT, PCBs, and dioxins, that are some of the most persistent and
dangerous chemicals ever manufactured.
Again, President Bush announced his support for the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and legislation has passed
the committee. That was never addressed by any previous administration.
That is just this administration. Environmental extremists and their
liberal friends in the press have you believe this President does not
have a good environmental record when he has the best record of any
President in history. No President has ever been as good as George W.
Bush.
Again, that should not even be a discussion right now, but due to the
fact we have the nomination of Mike Leavitt coming up and they refuse
to talk about his record and instead talk about the President's record,
I thought it was necessary to tell the truth about that record.
It is also interesting, there are six holds--so people understand
what we are talking about, a Senator can put a hold on a nomination to
keep that person from being confirmed. Of the six holds, four of those
people are running for President of the United States. That ought to
tell you something about the political motivation.
Madam President, may I inquire as to the time remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. I was going to get into another subject, but I have been
informed we have two or more speakers coming down who wish to use that
15 minutes. I was going to talk about what we are going to be dealing
with this coming Wednesday--this hoax called global warming. I will not
do that now, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I would like to inquire as to our time
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I will yield our 8 minutes to the
distinguished junior Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn, but when
Senator Jeffords comes in I am going to ask if we can borrow some of
his time because we do have one more speaker.
For right now, if the Senator is prepared, I yield the remainder of
our time to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to add a few words of my own to
the debate about Governor Leavitt's nomination. I have here a chart
that I think reflects my concerns about what we have seen happen with
regard to the nomination of this highly qualified individual to be
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It says:
Obstruction, it's not just for judges anymore.
I have the honor of serving on a number of committees in the Senate,
one of which is the Judiciary Committee where, unfortunately, I have
become somewhat accustomed to controversy and problems relating to
unprecedented filibusters which have prevented an up-or-down vote when
a bipartisan majority of the Senate actually stands ready to confirm
President Bush's judicial nominees. So you can imagine my surprise and
my consternation when, in fact, we have seen now the same sort of
obstructionist tactics that have become, unfortunately, all too common
in judicial nominations leak over into the deliberations of the
Environment and Public Works Committee.
Sadly, rather than working with Governor Leavitt to ensure the EPA is
doing all it can and should do to protect this Nation's environment,
some in this Chamber have chosen this as an opportunity to score
political points. They have turned to another good nominee as yet
another proxy for personal and political battles. It is clear to me
they seek to attack an extremely qualified and honorable man in order
to score political points with various special interest groups.
Governor Leavitt's extensive experience and impressive environmental
gains in his home State of Utah make him eminently qualified to serve.
Indeed, when Governor Leavitt came before the Environment and Public
Works Committee, many of my Democratic colleagues noted his
qualifications. They said, for example, he was ``a person of
principle.'' They held him in ``very high personal regard.'' They
called him ``bright,'' and a ``hard worker,'' who is ``very good at
building consensus'' and a ``man of integrity.''
Indeed, I agreed with those characterizations. But rather than
treating Governor Leavitt as the qualified nominee he is, some on the
other side of this aisle have seen fit to give his nomination no
respect at all. The reality is obstructing Governor Leavitt's
nomination only delays strong leadership where we need it dearly, and
that is at the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency. Delaying a
vote to confirm him only delays implementation of programs those of us
who are in favor of a cleaner environment would like to see served.
Unfortunately, many who claim to be pro-environment now find themselves
in the very ironic position of being anti-environment, from the
standpoint of opposing making sure the EPA has the kind of strong
leadership it needs to navigate a very difficult job.
[[Page S13244]]
The truth is, political blackmail will not clean our rivers and our
streams. Heated rhetoric will not improve our air quality. Jockeying
for position during a Presidential primary at the expense of a nominee
with a proven record will not protect our children from future
environmental threats.
With the exception of greenhouse gases, all air pollutants have been
declining for decades. I direct my comments now to the criticism that
really seemed to go not so much to Governor Leavitt but at the
administration, at the administration of President George W. Bush. In
all of the attempts to try to discredit the President and the current
administration on environmental issues, you might conclude--or someone
who is perhaps not well informed might well conclude--pollution is
running rampant in our country. In fact, the opposite is true. The
truth, as I said, is, with the exception of greenhouse gases, all air
pollutants that are tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency have
declined dramatically over the past decades. They have declined under
President Reagan. They declined under President George Herbert Walker
Bush, and President Clinton, and they declined even more under
President George W. Bush.
The EPA has done a study and found that thousands of monitoring
stations across the country have shown a tremendous improvement in our
environment over the last 20 years. Overall, aggregate emissions of the
six principal air pollutants have declined by 48 percent since 1970,
despite the fact that the American population has grown by 39 percent
during that period.
Most people reading the newspaper and watching television could be
excused if they had the impression that our environment was getting
dirtier and dirtier, when the truth is it is getting cleaner and
cleaner. Unfortunately, too many partisans have found it politically
helpful to them to mischaracterize the facts.
Some critics have recently targeted the President's proposed reforms
in the New Source Review concerning aging powerplants in the Midwest.
But what they neglect to mention is emissions from these very same
facilities have been declining at a steady rate, even as electricity
production has increased. Emissions have declined by 40 percent since
1980. The old 1977 ideas behind New Source Review assume you get
cleaner air if you impose tighter emissions regulations on newer plants
rather than old ones. That kind of thinking might work with a car,
because when cars get old, people replace them. But powerplants are
different. Many old powerplants are still operating, and I believe we
need to put common sense back into our environmental policies by
reforming New Source Review rules. If your plant wants to reduce
emissions and increase productivity, the Government should not stick
you in the eye. It should pat you on the back. But it is not just air
quality that has improved. All forms of water pollution have declined
for decades as well.
In 1970, approximately one-third of lakes and rivers in the United
States received the Clean Water Act definition of ``safe for fishing
and swimming.'' Today, nearly two-thirds of lakes and rivers meet that
standard.
Forested space has also been increasing in acreage--not declining--
for more than a decade. Our forests continue to expand under President
Bush, and trees continue to be one of our greatest and best managed
renewable resources.
Finally, there is this simple fact: No animal species in the United
States has fallen extinct since the full implementation of the
Endangered Species Act in the late 1970s. Indeed, many important
species are now experiencing positive population growth.
In the face of these facts, I find it very hard to believe the
unfounded criticism of this President's commitment to environmental
protection. The condition of the environment has improved since
President Bush took office, and it will continue to improve as a result
of his innovative reforms. It will continue to improve if our
colleagues across the aisle will end the politics of obstruction and
allow the confirmation of this highly qualified nominee who is a wise
choice. I have no doubt that he will continue the great progress which
this administration has made on environmental issues--seeking the goal
of cleaner air and safer water for all of us.
The extremists in this debate are not seeking balance or commonsense
solutions or, in fact, what is best for the American people. Instead,
they see this as a zero sum game--a proxy for political interests, and
they have chosen obstruction as one of their tactics.
Ultimately, this results in political blackmail that just makes
victims of us all. Governor Leavitt's reputation falls victim to
unwarranted and disrespectful attacks, a responsible Senate falls
victim to vicious political blather, and the American people fall
victim to politicians who are more attracted to serving special
interests than the public interest.
If the President's critics on the environment are truly committed to
protecting and preserving it, they should have put aside their
political agenda and allowed the Senate to vote on Governor Leavitt's
nomination. Obstruction won't clean the air, protect our rivers and
streams, or preserve our environment for future generations.
I am sad to say but it is clearly true that when it comes to
obstruction, it is not just for judges anymore. I urge my colleagues to
reconsider their tactics, vote to invoke cloture, and allow the
President's nominees to have an up-or-down vote and ultimately confirm
this fine nominee, Governor Leavitt.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from Florida be
given 15 minutes of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to address the issue of
the question of cutting off the filibuster with the motion for cloture
which we will be voting on in a couple of hours.
I announce that I think the debate should continue, and I want to
state why. I want the manager to know and to hear this directly.
I have just spoken to Governor Leavitt by telephone. He is in his
home State. I told him of my policy concerns.
First of all, I clearly have indicated to him I have the utmost
personal respect for him as a public servant, as someone who looks at
the best interests of his people. I think he has served with
distinction. I think the votes are probably here for the motion for
cloture to prevail and for him to be confirmed.
But there are certain policy questions that ought to be addressed
before the Senate that I think are very important. I am registering my
frustration with these policies that are not being enacted; and in
particular is the question of funding for the Superfund.
What is the Superfund? When I was in the House of Representatives, in
1980, we passed the Superfund law. It was a recognition that all over
America are these toxic waste dumps. The most notorious, and one of the
first, was the Love Canal.
Because of toxic waste invading the environment, often people are the
victims, people who happen to live in the area. We happen to have today
51 of these toxic waste dumps in my State of Florida. In Florida, the
health hazard and the environmental hazard is compounded because it is
a State with very low elevation and a high water table. These toxic
waste dumps that need to be cleaned up are allowed to continue to
fester and invade particularly the source of drinking water in a place
such as the State of Florida.
For example, there is a site about 10 miles west of Orlando--and this
is a true statement--where a company used to brew DDT in a kind of
witches brew, the byproduct of which they used for some chemical
reason. The problem was, when they brewed this DDT, they let it
overflow into a natural crevice in the ground.
Lo and behold, what did that crevice turn out to be? It turned out to
be a sinkhole. And what does the sinkhole do? It goes down into the
ground. And what does that do in a State such as Florida? It goes down
into the Floridian aquifer.
[[Page S13245]]
In addition to spilling over the sides of the sinkhole, it would flow
down in the natural contours of the land. And where did that go to?
Into a little creek that then flowed into Lake Apopka.
We used to have an estimated 4,000 alligators in Lake Apopka.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will be happy to yield to the Senator. Let
me finish. As you can see, I am really into this, and I want to get
this picture painted. I will be glad to get into the questions of the
policy, but let me complete my statement, if I may.
So it flowed down into this creek that flowed into Lake Apopka. The
estimate of the number of alligators in Lake Apopka today is not 4,000,
but 400. Some of those alligators they have captured they find are
mutated.
Now did that come from this witches brew? I am not sure
scientifically we can actually say that, but it is potentially a cause
of environmental damage. For the people who live around that toxic
waste dump site, there have been health problems cited for years. We
cannot clean it up because we do not have any money. That is what we
get back to: the money.
When I was in the House of Representatives, in 1980, we enacted the
Superfund law and we said: We are going to provide a fund for these
hundreds of toxic waste dumps all over the country that cannot be
cleaned up because the owner of the dump has now gone bankrupt or has
left town and there is no one financially responsible to clean up the
dump.
The trust fund would be there so when we did not have a financially
responsible party that could pay for cleaning up the toxic waste site,
we would have a fund to which we could go. The fund has dwindled and
the taxpayer has to pay more and more of the costs of cleaning up
orphan Superfund sites. Congress-requested studies of the future needs
of the program indicate that this Administration has not allocated the
resources necessary to meet the needs of the Superfund sites and
communities throughout the country. In the 1990s, the Superfund fee on
petroleum, chemical feedstocks and corporate income lapsed. As a
result, the only place we have now to go to replenish the fund is the
general revenues of the U.S. Government. You realize how difficult that
is to get the money required to address the many orphaned hazardous
waste sites across the country, particularly when we are running
deficits to the tune of a half a trillion dollars a year; that is,
paying $500 billion more than we have coming in tax revenue so we have
to go out and borrow the difference. Therefore, the funding of any
program is more difficult.
It is that policy difference that I have with this administration and
the White House. That is why I came to the floor to register my concern
as we debate the nomination of Governor Leavitt as the new EPA
Administrator. It has nothing to do with him as a person. I think he is
a very fine person. It has nothing to do with the person-to-person
meeting I had with him, asking him about setting forth his ideas on the
Superfund trust fund I have just discussed. Of course, he can't
contradict the White House. He cannot contradict the Vice President and
the President who have already set their policy that they do not want
to fill the trust fund, that they want to do it by general revenue
appropriations. I think that is a serious mistake.
I had asked Governor Leavitt about a number of other issues affecting
my State of Florida and I appreciate the response I received from the
Acting Administrator as directed by Gov. Leavitt: EPA is moving the
right way on arsenic-treated wood also called CCA, chromium copper
arsenate, with regard to residential uses and playground uses.
I told Gov. Leavitt about two of the toxic waste sites in Pensacola.
I told him about a concern with a phosphate plant and the health
conditions people are reporting in East Hillsborough County. They have
responded to all of those. But with regard to the main concern of the
policy difference on the trust fund, I must register my protest.
Would the Senator from Oklahoma, who is my dear friend and who takes
the opposite side on this issue, like to engage in some conversation on
this? I would be pleased to yield.
Mr. INHOFE. I would like to ask my good friend from Florida: At the
very beginning of his remarks, he said the money isn't there. I wanted
to make sure he was aware, which I think he is, that the Bush request
for 2004 is the second largest request since the date he mentioned
being on the floor in 1980. I was not here until 1984. But right now
his request is $1.38 billion. I first ask if the Senator is aware of
that.
Secondly, as far as the tax is concerned, we have never left the idea
of polluter pays. Right now, polluter pays. In 70 percent of the cases,
if there is a polluter who can be identified, the polluter pays. The
problem you are coming up with, when you talk about the tax--which
expired in 1995 under the Clinton administration, and President Clinton
did not ask for its reinstatement or for a tax--is that that is not
polluter pays. That takes care of some orphan cases, either general
funds or that tax.
Is that fair, to have businesses paying into a fund that pays for
pollution cleanup that they didn't cause? That is a bad policy to do
that. I wanted to be sure we were talking about the same thing.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. He is my
friend, and he knows I love him. We can engage in this kind of dialogue
with a smile on our faces because we are personal friends. But I have a
significant difference of opinion with the Senator from Oklahoma. This
Administration has not devoted the resources necessary to clean up the
many orphaned sites in Florida that depend upon the now almost bankrupt
Superfund trust fund.
In each one of these cases I have indicated, two in Escambia County,
one west of Orlando--I could take you through the other orphan sites in
the State of Florida--the only source of revenue we will have to clean
up these sites is the American taxpayer, unless we reimpose the fee
that was part of the deal that was struck in 1980 with the oil
companies.
I would just say in response to my good friend that if the
administration is requesting additional general revenue, then I say
hooray for the administration. But, that is not going to solve the
problem of hundreds of these sites around the country. You have to have
that source of revenue, particularly with the dire financial condition
this country is facing, where this country is going into bankruptcy by
our deficit financing each year to the tune of a half trillion dollars.
We are just not going to be able to get the funds to clean up these
sites that are so personal to the communities in which they are
located.
Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate my friend, because he is my friend, yielding
further. The point I want to get across is that according to EPA
figures--this was true back in the previous administration also--70
percent of those cleanups are paid for by the polluter. It is
inaccurate to imply that they are not doing it. When you let a tax
expire, as they did in 1995--again, this is not a partisan thing
because that happened during the Clinton administration--that is a tax
on businesses that has nothing to do with polluters. These are not
polluters who are paying this tax. They could be anyone out there. But
the fact is that this administration is making the request for $1.38
billion and the fund is there.
You can talk about Florida all you want. I ask my friend from Florida
if he is aware that the most devastating Superfund site in America is
in my State of Oklahoma. No one else is even close.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Florida has
expired. The time yielded to the Senator from Florida has expired. Does
the Senator from Vermont continue to yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may continue.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will continue to yield to my friend. I want
to respond to him.
Mr. INHOFE. No one is more concerned about devastating sites than I
am. I would say this. We are going to correct it. We are in the process
of cleaning it up. A lot of the funding is not going to be coming from
the Superfund that is in place right now. Nonetheless, it is going to
be cleared up. The point is this. It was a tax that expired during the
Clinton administration. The Clinton administration did
[[Page S13246]]
not want to renew it and never made an effort to. This administration
has never made an effort to renew it because it is wrong. It is bad
public policy to pass a tax for people to pay for pollution cleanups
that they didn't cause. It is as simple as that.
I thank the Senator for yielding for questions.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is my pleasure, of course.
This is what sharpens ideas, when you can throw ideas out and have
them discussed in the marketplace of public discussion. I respond to my
friend by saying, of course, he has heard of the sites that are known
as orphan sites. These are toxic waste sites that do not have a
financially responsible party that you can go to in order to get the
money to clean it up.
Therefore, the whole idea of the 1980 Superfund law was to provide a
source of funding for these orphan sites so that you can get them
cleaned up, so that the community as a whole can be protected from a
health standpoint. I cited just one site in Florida which was west of
Orlando. I can cite another. For example, in Pensacola we have what is
known as ``Mount Dioxin.'' It is a former wood-treating plant. The site
of that old plant is so toxic that an entire neighborhood subdivision
located next to it had to be evacuated. It is deserted; it is fenced
off. Only now are we having to go back and appropriate additional
moneys to get to the health department as they do an outreach to try to
find the people who used to live in that neighborhood, to get them to
come in for their health checks.
Believe it or not, in the flatlands of Florida--in this case,
Pensacola--this turgid, infested soil called Mount Dioxin is exactly
that. They have it piled up to the tune of about 40 feet high, with a
tarpaulin strung over it, trying to contain all of this toxic waste. My
goodness, can you imagine a major hurricane coming up the mouth of
Pensacola Bay, straight for the city of Pensacola, and start tearing up
Mount Dioxin, spreading that all over the city and Escambia County?
Then you have another health hazard on your hands.
I don't want to wait, as the Acting Administrator of the EPA has done
EPA's best in telling me next year they are going to come up with a
plan to take down Mount Dioxin, to grade it to ground level, and try to
figure out how they are going to dispose of it. It is another hurricane
season we are going to have to go through. If we had a source of
funding, EPA could so quickly and so much more efficiently go on about
the task of cleaning up that site.
As you can see, I feel pretty strongly about this. I tried to
register this with Governor Leavitt a few minutes ago in my
conversation with him on the telephone. I tried to register it with him
a couple months ago in my direct face-to-face conversation with him.
But he is shackled because of the policy requirements of the White
House; that is, that they not fund this trust fund with the original
Superfund fee.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend my good friend from Florida
for bringing the real world into our discussion here and letting the
country and all of us recognize the tremendous problems that exist. His
are some of the most astounding problems we have, but they are
throughout the country.
If we don't do something, the lives of thousands of people are going
to be affected; they are going to end up being dead or very ill. So
that is what we are talking about today. It is incredibly important to
find a solution, and I thank the Senator for his contribution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Illinois 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor with a genuine concern
about this appointment by the Bush administration. When President Bush
first appointed Gov. Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey as the head
of the EPA, many of us breathed a sigh of relief, realizing that she
had an extraordinarily good record as Governor of New Jersey when it
came to environmental issues, understanding that when she came to
Washington, she would be up against some massive special interest
forces who, frankly, believe that environmental law is too strong,
wrong, and that the special interests should have a lot more say in the
decisionmaking.
I voted for Christine Todd Whitman because I had hope she would bring
balance to an administration that might be pushed too far toward the
special interest groups. On many occasions, she lived up to that
aspiration and hope on my part. I met with her several times, discussed
important issues, publicly and privately. I was encouraged by the
things she said.
But it became apparent after a while that, despite her strong
credentials on the environment, they were no match to the force of
special interests when it came to the Bush administration on
environmental policy. Time and again, the EPA came down on the wrong
side when it came to protecting the environment. The list is extremely
long. I will not go through all of it in detail. But this was the first
President--President Bush--to oppose polluter fees to pay for cleaning
up toxic waste sites since Superfund became law. In Illinois and across
America, Superfund waste sites are there still, today, creating toxic
emergencies and public health hazards across America because President
Bush doesn't want the polluting industry to pay to clean them up. That
is a fact. That happened in the EPA with Christine Todd Whitman. It
could have been one of the reasons she left.
This President slashed the EPA enforcement staff by over 100
employees. So there will be fewer men and women keeping an eye on toxic
polluters in America. The administration also entered into arrangements
crafting an energy plan rich with subsidies for the oil and gas
industry and devoid of any fuel efficiency standards for America's cars
and trucks. A recent GAO report found that President Bush's OMB is
changing environmental regulations, often without disclosing these
actions to the public.
The President has refused to act on global warming despite recent
reports that ice levels in many parts of the world are low, threatening
the polar bear and other species with extinction.
Now we have the successor of Christine Todd Whitman presented,
Michael Leavitt of Utah. I have never met him, so I cannot say I have
any personal knowledge of who he is or what he stands for. I can only
look at his record as Governor of Utah. The record is not encouraging.
In fact, with his administration, Utah recently tied for last place in
Clean Water Act enforcement and ranked first in the Nation for toxic
waste release. Imagine, the nominee for the EPA's top post is coming
from a State that ranked No. 1 in the Nation for toxic waste release,
and a State that tied for last place in the Clean Water Act
enforcement. What does that tell you about his conscience and his
concern when it comes to the environment? It doesn't give me a good
feeling and hope that he will have any of the strength that Christine
Todd Whitman had to stand up against the polluters and against the
special interest groups and stand up for the environment in America.
That is a sad commentary on this nominee to this critically important
position. At this point, many colleagues on the committee and others in
the Senate have raised important questions, and many answers have not
been given as to why the decision was made by the Republican leadership
to move this through. Some say that timing has to do with a lawsuit on
file in Utah. I have no idea why we have to do this today. That,
frankly, is a decision made by the Republican leadership.
I will tell you that I think it is a sad commentary that a Republican
Party, with distinguished and rich history leaders such as Teddy
Roosevelt, who had the foresight to provide Federal protection to
almost 230 million acres of land, is considering the appointment of a
Governor of Utah to the EPA who has turned his back on the preservation
of wilderness areas in his own home State. But that is a fact. That is
a matter of record.
I urge my colleagues to consider this very carefully. If you believe
the Bush administration's policy on environmental protection is a good
one, vote yes for Governor Leavitt. If you believe they have moved
forward in making America safer when it comes to clean water and less
toxic ways, vote for Governor Leavitt. But if you believe, as I do,
that this policy and this approach have been wrong--and, frankly, I
believe this nominee has not presented us with evidence that he will
[[Page S13247]]
fight to change the Bush administration record on the environment.
Sadly, his record as Governor of Utah is pointed in the opposite
direction. For that reason, I am forced to oppose his nomination.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. I think I probably misunderstood the Senator. Did you say
that the polluter pays policy has disappeared, is not in existence now?
Mr. DURBIN. Virtually gone.
Mr. INHOFE. Are you aware that 70 percent of the cleanups are paid
for by the polluter today?
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator knows better than that I do that when you
stop taxing the polluting industry, you stop creating a fund to clean
up the sites. The Superfund toxic sites are, frankly, just sitting
there. Nothing is being done because the money is not being collected
in the Superfund for enforcement.
The reason is, this administration said we are going to have a hands-
off policy when it comes to the polluting industry. Any money going
into Superfund has to come from the general tax fund, and then as a
consequence of their budget there is no money in the fund. So this
Superfund approach is a dream come true for polluting industries. This
is the first President, Democrat or Republican, to turn his back on the
responsibility of polluting industries to clean up toxic waste and,
frankly, it appears that Governor Leavitt wants to continue that
policy.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware that the tax to which he is
referring went out in 1995 during the Clinton administration; it was
not requested to be renewed at any time during the remainder of the
Clinton Presidency, nor has it since that time? Secondly, the reason is
that the policy that you should pass a tax on business to pay for
pollution cleanup that they had nothing to do with is not a fair
policy.
Mr. DURBIN. I say in response, and my time is probably running out,
there was an adequate balance in the Superfund to go forward during the
Clinton administration because of the collections from these polluting
industries. Now that that Superfund is virtually bankrupt and without
funds, what the Bush administration has said is we would not dare ask
the polluting industries. Instead, we ask every taxpaying family and
business in America to pay for Superfund cleanup. That is fundamentally
unfair.
Why should ordinary taxpayers face the responsibility of pollution
and toxic waste created by an industry? The Superfund, which has been
supported by Democratic and Republican Presidents, and rejected by this
President, I think was a fair approach. Because this President will not
fund it and because he will not come back and ask for the polluting
industries to pay, there is no money for the Superfund cleanup.
What do we have left? We have the stern policy from the
administration and a new administrator who says he supports it. The
result of it? More toxic waste sites in my State, perhaps in the
Senator's, that are there to endanger public health. How can that
possibly be in the best interest of America?
Mr. INHOFE. If the Senate will yield further?
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. INHOFE. The policy is what I was trying to get to. First, it is a
fact that the tax ran out during a Democratic administration, that of
President Clinton. Secondly, the policy to say let's pass a tax on any
business out there, or any industry out there, whether or not they
pollute anything, and they have to pay for whomever is polluting, when
today 70 percent of the cleanup--these are the figures--are being paid
for by those who are polluting, it is a polluters' pay policy that is
working today.
Mr. DURBIN. I will reclaim my time and say to the Senator, if I am
not mistaken, the period of time when the tax was not reinstated was a
period of time when the Republicans were in control of Congress.
Stepping aside from that for a moment, the Senator from Oklahoma is
gifted in this area, understands it better than most and understands
how little is being done today because there is no money in the
Superfund to pay for the toxic cleanup. So as a consequence, this
administration neither puts the revenue in the budget nor reinstates
the tax on polluters and basically says we are going to turn a blind
eye to toxic waste sites across America, which endanger the water
supply of communities all across the board.
How can that be right for our children or the families who are
unwittingly being exposed to this kind of pollution? That is the kind
of policy which we need to oppose and, frankly, it is the kind of
policy which I am afraid Governor Leavitt supports and that is why I
cannot support his nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
The Senator from Vermont controls the time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 34 minutes 10 seconds.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New York as
much time as she may consume, up to the max.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the EPW
Committee, my friend and colleague, Senator Jeffords, for his
leadership on these environmental issues that we are considering today.
I am also very appreciative of the opportunity to speak to the
nomination of Governor Leavitt to be the Administrator of the EPA on a
particular issue of grave concern to me and to my constituents.
On August 21, 2003, the inspector general of the EPA issued a report
which raised serious questions about the EPA's response to the collapse
of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11. In that report--I
have a copy here--the EPA IG concluded that the White House had
modified several EPA press releases regarding air quality in New York
that made them overly reassuring to the public.
Second, the IG raised a number of questions about the adequacy of the
EPA's testing and cleanup program to address indoor air quality
concerns in New York.
These findings, as my colleagues know, were very disturbing to New
Yorkers, the people I represent, who went through so much on September
11 and performed so magnificently, not only in the heroic responses by
our firefighters, our police, our EMTs, and others, but also in the
resilience and the extraordinary reactions of so many citizens--the
construction workers who dropped their tools in one borough in uptown
Manhattan to rush down to help, the utility workers, the volunteers,
the transit workers, the people who got the stock exchange up and
going. It was just an extraordinary demonstration of the spirit and
courage of the people of New York and America.
So it was troubling when New Yorkers had to ask themselves: Can we
trust our Government? Can we rely on the information we are given when
it comes to matters of such critical importance as the air we breathe?
It was especially troubling because we already knew that hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of the first responders who came to the Towers,
who stayed at the pile, who worked day after day, were suffering from
what was called the World Trade Center cough, which really was asthma
or bronchial problems or pulmonary distress or RADS, which is the
reactive air disorder syndrome.
Then we began hearing about people who had gone back to work and
people who had returned to their homes in the affected area who were
similarly suffering. So it was a very troubling report. It raised a
number of questions to which I and others sought answers.
So on August 26 I wrote to the President, along with my colleague,
Senator
[[Page S13248]]
Lieberman, because Senator Lieberman had been the chairman of the
appropriate subcommittee of the environment committee that permitted us
to hold a hearing in lower Manhattan in February of 2002 to try to
begin to get answers to these issues long before the inspector general
talked about them. Senator Lieberman and I joined together to write a
letter to the President, asking for answers to the questions raised by
the IG report. In particular, we wanted more details about what was
claimed in the IG report to constitute interference by the White House
with the EPA over the public information that was made available to the
people of New York and the surrounding area.
We also wanted some reaction about the recommendations the IG made.
For people who are watching at home, IG stands for inspector general.
Government departments have these offices. They are independent of
whatever political administration is in power at the time, and they are
supposed to look after the public interest and keep an eye on the
people who are in government positions.
So the EPA Inspector General had raised all of these questions about
the adequacy of the cleanup which the EPA had carried out, and,
frankly, recommended some additional steps be taken.
On September 5, I received a reply from the EPA acting administrator.
Frankly, it did not respond to the concerns we raised. It was quite
defensive in tone, which I regretted because I think we are all in this
together, trying to figure out how we get the best information to take
the most appropriate actions to protect the health of people. The
letter on September 5 was basically a recitation of all the positive
actions the EPA had taken, many of which I agree were positive actions.
But that was not what was at issue.
On September 5 of last month, we got that response. Then we quickly
wrote again to the President, reiterating the demand for answers and
actions. But still we got no response. I regretted that because I think
this is an issue larger than even the horrors of September 11 and the
aftermath. It really went to the heart of how we can trust the
information and the reliability of the information we receive from our
Government, especially in times of crisis.
When Governor Leavitt was nominated for the position of Administrator
of the EPA, I made it clear to Governor Leavitt, to my colleagues on
the Environment and Public Works Committee, and to the public I would
put a hold on Governor Leavitt's nomination. At that moment it was the
only means available to a single Senator to get the attention of the
White House and to demonstrate the seriousness I believed these issues
demanded.
I met privately with Governor Leavitt, whom I have known for quite
some time. I have a high regard for him. I have known both the Governor
and his wife Jackie for a number of years. I knew from my conversations
with him that he listened very carefully and was quite sympathetic with
the concerns I was raising. Obviously, as a nominee he had no authority
to commit the administration to doing anything. But I did believe he
was open to the arguments I was making and the findings of the
inspector general.
Because of the hold I placed on Governor Leavitt, and the
conversations I had with the Governor and the White House personnel
assigned to shepherd his nomination through the Senate, I began
negotiations with the White House Council on Environmental Quality. CEQ
it is called. CEQ is the office within the White House that tries to
ride herd over environmental policies, to advise the President on these
issues, and to work with the EPA. We learned because of some documents
requested by Senator Jeffords that it was the CEQ, the White House
Council on Environmental Quality, which had indeed made the
recommendations and issued the orders to the EPA to change their press
releases in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. That was the entity within
the White House that made those determinations.
I appreciate Senator Jeffords' efforts to obtain those documents
because they answered my questions. I didn't get answers from the EPA
or the White House directly, but indirectly because of the excellent
work of Senator Jeffords and his staff I did get my questions answered.
It is very clear there were some quite tense conversations, including
some real shouting matches between the CEQ White House personnel and
the EPA personnel over what should or shouldn't be in those press
releases.
When I met with the head of the Council on Environmental Quality, a
gentleman by the name of Jim Connaughton, I raised my concerns about
the process that was underway in the aftermath of 9/11, that we needed
to learn some lessons from that process; it didn't work; and I
understand very well how there can be competing tensions between the
White House and a government agency, but I think we need to learn from
that. I was heartened by Mr. Connaughton's openness and his willingness
to frankly admit this was unprecedented. We didn't know how we were
going to behave in the face of such a horrific attack. Thankfully, it
never happened again, and we hope it will never, ever again. But we
have to be better prepared.
To the first part of my inquiry about answers I wanted about who in
the White House did this and how it all unfolded, we were able to
obtain quite a bit of information. Clearly the Council on Environmental
Quality, working with the National Security Council and others in the
White House, made some calls that may not have been the best judgment
calls. But now we can take a look at those in sort of a calmness of
some distance and realize we have to change that process. We should not
be interfering with information that goes directly to the public and
which will enable members of the public to make decisions that are
right for them. The answer part of who did what and how this all
happened we began to be able to piece together.
We also started discussions with the White House concerning the
additional steps that need to be taken. Here we wanted to try to get a
process started that would look at the inspector general's
recommendations and implement them, and go even further to try to
determine what we know, what we don't know, and what actions we should
take to get to the bottom of this very thorny question of indoor air
contamination. This is a new issue for most of us. We have been
focusing on cleaning up the air on the outside. But increasingly what I
am hearing from so many people in New York and around the country is we
have to do more on indoor air.
What happened after 9/11 is the EPA originally said, This is not
within our responsibility. We are not responsible for following up on
indoor air. That is the city's responsibility. The city of New York
said they did not know what they were supposed to do on indoor air. In
fact, before the hearing Senator Lieberman and I held in February of
2002, a witness appeared from the city who was very candid, and said,
We were given this responsibility for indoor air. We don't do indoor
air.
Through a long process of negotiations, finally in June of 2002 the
EPA took responsibility for running the testing to determine if there
was continuing contamination of the indoor air in residences and
workplaces. Unfortunately, because this had never been done before,
there were a lot of holes in the process. There were a lot of missteps
in the process.
Again, I think that is something we should learn from. I give great
credit to my colleagues who represent Lower Manhattan--Congressman
Jerry Nadler, who was just absolutely focused day in and day out in
trying to get the EPA first to do this indoor air testing and then to
do it right. All along Congressman Nadler said this is not being done
right. We are going to find out after they go home and they say they
have done what they are supposed to do that there are still all kinds
of contamination that have been left and that is going to have an
increasing impact on people who live and work in these buildings.
Sure enough, the testing that went on demonstrated the cleanup was
not adequate and, unfortunately, because it was sort of haphazard and
random, one apartment would be cleaned up but the apartment next door
wouldn't be, or the apartments would be cleaned up in the building but
the heating and air conditioning wouldn't be. So it never really got
the attention and the standardization that it needed. That is why
[[Page S13249]]
the inspector general recommended a number of additional steps to be
taken.
So we began this process of negotiating with the White House over
what would or should be done, and I must say it was a very positive
process. My staff, Senator Lieberman's staff, the White House Council
on Environmental Quality, the EPA, and others have been working
together now for several weeks.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold for a unanimous consent request?
Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, the distinguished minority floor
manager wants to have a UC.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we need to advise Senators of what is going
to take place at 5:30. There has been a change in the schedule to be
announced shortly by the Senator from Oklahoma. It is my understanding
that following the statement of the Senator from New York, the Senator
from Utah wishes to speak for up to 5 minutes on the Leavitt matter.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I could have 5 minutes to speak before
the vote on the judge this evening.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Oklahoma go ahead with the UC?
Mr. HATCH. Could I ask the distinguished Senator from New York if she
would finish so I would have at least 5 or 6 minutes before the vote?
Mr. REID. If we have to extend the vote on the judge for a couple
minutes, we can do that.
Will the Senator go ahead with the UC? We will make sure everybody is
covered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator
from Utah reserved the right to object. I ask if he is objecting.
Mr. HATCH. No, I am not objecting, with the understanding that I ask
unanimous consent that before the vote on the judge this evening, I be
given 6 minutes to speak.
Mr. REID. How long?
Mr. HATCH. Six minutes.
Mr. REID. The Senator from New York has the floor.
I say to the Senator from New York, we are in no way trying to speed
up your speech. How much longer do you anticipate speaking?
Mrs. CLINTON. I will end my remarks so that the Senator from Utah
will have 6 minutes prior to the 5:30 vote.
Mr. HATCH. That is acceptable. I modify my unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled
cloture vote be vitiated and, further, that at 9:30 tomorrow morning
the Senate resume consideration of the Leavitt nomination and there
then be 60 minutes equally divided between the chairman and the ranking
member or their designees, with 20 minutes of the minority time under
the control of Senator Lautenberg. I further ask consent that following
that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the
nomination, with no intervening action or debate, provided that
following that vote, the President be immediately notified of the
Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.
I also ask unanimous consent that this evening at 5:30 the Senate
proceed to a vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 424, the
nomination of Dale Fischer to be U.S. District Judge for the Central
District of California; further, that following that vote the President
be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then
resume legislative session.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to make sure this includes Senator
Hatch's request for 6 minutes before the vote on the judge. I would
also ask, Mr. President, if Senator Leahy wishes to speak for up to 2
minutes prior to the vote on the judge, that he be allowed to do so,
along with 2 minutes for the Senator from Utah, the chairman of the
committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, over the last several weeks we have been in
negotiations with the White House over the serious matters concerning
the cleanup and the continuing threat of contamination in residences
and workplaces in Lower Manhattan.
Today, we have reached an agreement and I have received a commitment
to action from the White House to address these indoor air quality
concerns.
Now, this is not everything I would have wished for. It is not
exactly what the inspector general has recommended. And I will continue
to work with the White House and the EPA to make sure we go wherever
the evidence leads us and that we have independent, outside validation
of whatever it is the EPA does. But we have reached agreement with the
White House for additional testing to verify that residences that have
been cleaned have not been recontaminated.
In addition, the White House has committed to forming an expert panel
consisting of both Government experts and outside experts to reevaluate
a range of issues raised by the inspector general's report.
I believe this is an important step forward in addressing the
concerns raised by New Yorkers about the safety of the air we breathe.
It is not enough--I want to make that absolutely clear--it is not
enough, but it is a step forward, and I believe it will provide a venue
in which all of our concerns can be addressed.
In the spirit that led us to this agreement reached by my office with
the White House Council on Environmental Quality, I will be voting for
Governor Leavitt when his nomination comes before the Senate because I
intend to work closely with him as we implement this agreement on which
the White House has signed off.
I know there are many who will say: but it is not everything we
should have gotten. And I agree with that absolutely. If I could have
written it myself, I would have adopted all of the inspector general's
recommendations. But on the other hand, we now have a process and a
venue in which to discuss these matters and to try to make progress
together.
I thank Senator Lieberman for working with me on this effort. I also
thank Senator Voinovich for being very understanding and sympathetic
about this issue and working with me on important legislation that,
under our chairman, the Senator from Oklahoma, we have passed out of
the committee which I hope will receive favorable floor action sometime
in the next several weeks because it will help to avoid these problems
in the future.
One of our big problems was nobody was quite sure who was in charge
of indoor air. There had been an Executive order signed a couple years
before which seemed to suggest the EPA was, but that was not
statutorily clear. We needed to figure out where the State and the city
fit.
So what Senator Voinovich and I have done is to put together, in
legislation, the authority for the President to make these decisions,
and to be clear about them, so we do not end up with all of these
concerns about who is responsible and who have to be the front people
and who does the testing. We should put that behind us. I hope we can
act on the legislation Senator Voinovich and I have put forward.
I also thank Senator Reid, who is a long-time friend of the Leavitt
family and who shares my hope that Governor Leavitt will be the kind of
Administrator of EPA with whom all of us on both sides of the aisle can
work, and that we will see the EPA once again being the agency in the
Government that sets and implements environmental policy.
Again, I thank Senator Jeffords for his leadership and his deep
concern about these issues.
I also thank my colleague, Congressman Jerry Nadler, for his vigorous
advocacy on behalf of New Yorkers and on making it clear every step of
the way what the shortfalls and the inadequacies in the process adopted
by the EPA turned out to be. Congressman Nadler has been a very staunch
ally in this effort to get to this point.
Just a few minutes before I came to the floor, I received a letter
from the Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental
Quality, signed by James L. Connaughton. I ask unanimous consent that
the letter be printed in the Record, Mr. President.
[[Page S13250]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Executive Office of the President, Council on
Environmental Quality,
Washington, DC, October 27, 2003.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senators Clinton and Lieberman: I appreciate the
opportunity to respond to your September 9th letter, building
on the subsequent constructive discussions that I have had
with Senator Clinton and that our respective staffs have had
concerning your questions about lower Manhattan air quality
in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks and subsequent
efforts the government has undertaken to further assure
public health and safety. This letter sets out our
understanding following those staff discussions.
The tragedy of September 11th was unprecedented in its
scope. The complexity of the situation facing the local,
state and federal governments in responding to this terrorist
attack was immense--the work by all was heroic.
The Environmental Protection Agency working with the
Council on Environmental Quality, OSHA and the State and City
of New York, did their utmost to communicate the best
available information accurately, and in a timely fashion to
meet the needs of lower-Manhattan residents, workers and
businesses. Their safety, health and well-being were our
greatest concerns, and remain so today. The information was
communicated through a variety of methods, including press
releases, direct communications with residents and media
interviews with federal, state and local officials. We
continue to stand by the information distributed in press
releases regarding potential long-term health risks. The EPA
Inspector General reported that the experts her office spoke
to generally confirmed that EPA's draft risk evaluation
tended to support EPA's statements on long-term health
effects.
As we discussed, the federal government's communications in
September of 2001 were conveyed real-time in complex and
fast-moving circumstances. In all instances, we acted with
the best available data at the time, and updated our
communications and actions as new data was coming in. We all
learned a great deal in the aftermath of September 11th,
including how to improve our response and communciations
efforts. Given a situation with the uncertainty and emotions
such as followed the World Trade Center attacks, we recognize
that we can communicate best through a focused, civil, and
collaborative effort. After September 11th, EPA conducted a
``lessons learned'' exercise and, in conjunction with the new
Department of Homeland Security, improved its emergency
response and crisis communications system, improvements
that were successfully put to test in the swift and well-
coordinated response to the space shuttle Columbia tragedy
in February.
In her prior letter to you, Acting Administrator Horinko
outlined many actions the EPA is continuing to take in
response to this tragedy. Ms. Horinko described the
substantial amount of monitoring, cleaning and re-cleaning
already conducted, the coordination between EPA, FEMA and
OSHA on indoor cleanup, OSHA's commitment to continue to
investigate complaints of dust exposure from workers in
commercial establishments, and EPA's ongoing focus on
residences.
In my meeting with Senator Clinton, we discussed at length
the process of coordination following the attacks, including
CEQ's role. We have since shared with your staffs a
compilation of federal air quality and related health studies
conducted in the vicinity of Ground Zero which the Office of
Science and Technology Policy completed in December 2002, as
well as asbestos monitoring data for workers OSHA provided to
the EPA. As you know, of the more than 4,100 residential
units in Lower Manhattan examined as part of EPA's indoor air
quality and cleaning program only about 1 percent were found
to have asbestos at levels exceeding the health-based
standard for long-term risk. We hope this exchange has
provided a clearer understanding of the interagency
coordination process and a greater knowledge of the breadth
of activities undertaken by the federal government
immediately following September 11th and since.
To provide greater collaboration in ongoing efforts to
monitor the situation for New York residents and workers and
assure them of their current safety, we will be undertaking
the following activities: (1) extend the health follow-up
associated with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry's (ATSDR) registry of residents and workers; and (2)
convene an expert technical review panel to help guide the
agencies' use of the available exposure and health
surveillance databases and registries to characterize any
remaining exposures and risks, identify unmet public health
needs, and recommend any steps to further minimize the risks
associated with the aftermath of the World Trade Center
attacks. EPA would organize and lead this group of experts,
with representation from the federal agencies directly
involved in the air quality response and monitoring, the New
York City Departments of Health and Environmental Protection,
and outside experts. The panel would review the following:
Within 3-6 months:
Post cleaning verification sampling to be done by EPA in
the residential areas included in EPA's Indoor Air Cleanup to
verify that re-contamination has not occurred from central
hearing and air conditioning systems;
The peer reviewed ``World Trade Center Indoor Air
Assessment and Selection of Contaminants of Concern and
Setting Health-Based Benchmarks,'' which concluded asbestos
was an appropriate surrogate in determining risk for other
contaminants.
Within 18-24 months:
Identification of any areas where the health registry could
be enhanced to allow better tracking of post-exposure risks
by workers and residents.
Review and synthesize the ongoing work by the federal,
state and local governments and private entities to determine
the characteristics of the WTC plume and where it was
dispersed, including the geographic extent of EPA and other
entities' monitoring and testing, and recommend any
additional evaluations for consideration by EPA and other
public agencies.
We look forward to working with you. Clearly, we are agreed
that the health of New York's residents and workers is
paramount. By working together, we can ensure their needs are
met.
Sincerely,
James L. Connaughton.
Mrs. CLINTON. This letter, which does give us the basis for further
efforts to try to get to the bottom of these issues concerning indoor
air, is a very welcome step forward. Again, although it is not enough,
it is not what the inspector general had in mind, it does give us that
venue, that process, that opportunity to keep working together to get
these answers.
The reason this is so important goes far beyond my constituents in
lower Manhattan. It goes to the heart and soul of what we can expect
from our Government, how reliable the information is, and whether we
are prepared to look at new problems caused by unforeseen,
unprecedented events such as what occurred on 9/11.
That is not the only area where we need to be focused on cleaning up
indoor air and being conscious of continuing contamination. This
morning I was in Endicott, NY, outside of Binghamton, where there was
for many years a very large IBM plant, a very successful plant. In
1979, there was a spill, a toxic spill, 4,100 gallons, at least, that
went into the aquifer and then went into the ground water. Now what we
are finding is that this plume of toxic material in the water
underneath this town, 350 acres through which it has spread--that the
fumes from this plume are now seeping up through the ground into the
residences of the people in Endicott, NY.
So this indoor air issue is not just about post-9/11 and New York
City. It is a new issue that we must face in this Congress because the
vast majority of people are totally unable to figure out what to do
about this issue.
I am pleased that we have come to this point, that we have made this
progress with the White House. I look forward to working with Governor
Leavitt in trying to resolve these matters. I hope this spirit of
cooperation is an indication of a new attitude in the administration
toward the environment and toward working with us to try to solve the
health and safety problems that affect our constituents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in accordance with the UC request, I yield
6 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I
express my gratitude to the Democrats and, of course, our two leaders
on the committee for being willing to vitiate this cloture vote and end
what some perceived was a threatened filibuster of Governor Leavitt. I
am very appreciative that they will allow a vote up or down tomorrow
morning on Governor Leavitt's nomination as Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. That is what should be done.
Governor Leavitt is one of the finest public servants in this
country. He has served our State long and well, but he has served the
whole country in a variety of ways which I will mention.
It goes without saying that this is not a job Governor Leavitt has
asked for or aspired to. But he has accepted the President's
nomination, first of all because the President has asked him to, and
second, because it's a job of critical importance for our Nation.
[[Page S13251]]
Other than our people and our values, our Nation's environment and
natural resources are our greatest asset. We in Utah understand that
better than most.
And in spite of what some critics of President Bush would have us
believe, our Nation has been steadily getting cleaner and safer every
year of his presidency. Already, President Bush has signed the
Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty. He has proposed and begun
implementing ground breaking legislation to greatly accelerate the
clean up of our Nation's brownfield sites. He has announced his plan to
reduce off-road diesel emissions by 90 percent.
Although his critics refuse to believe it, President Bush's Clear
Skies initiative will, in fact, lead to quicker reductions in air
pollution across the board than would otherwise be accomplished. Under
President Bush, powerplants will be updated and become cleaner than
ever before. Under President Bush our forests and other natural
resources will become better managed, and the threat of forest fires
will be reduced--something that has not been done in the past.
Most important, our President is accomplishing these environmental
goals without a dramatic increase in Federal mandates. He is doing it
without pitting the environment against human needs. He is doing it
without pinning the ``polluter'' label on our industry, as the past
administration was so apt to do. President Bush has shifted the
environmental debate from one about process and control to one about
outcomes and results.
Governor Leavitt has a similar record for improving the environment
in Utah. Before Governor Leavitt came to office, Utah often failed to
meet national clean air standards. In large part this was because most
Utahns live on a valley floor surrounded by mountains. Through hard
work and consensus building, though, Governor Leavitt helped Utah to
overcome our air quality obstacles, and our State now is in consistent
compliance with the EPA's air quality standards.
Governor Leavitt also has been a leader in finding solutions to
regional air problems. He helped to begin the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission and the Western Regional Air Partnership, which
established a wide sweeping collaborative approach to reducing haze
over our national parks and public lands on the Colorado Plateau.
When Governor Leavitt took office, about 60 percent of Utah's streams
met Federal water quality standards. This represented the current
national average for States. Under his leadership, though, 73 percent
of Utah's streams now meet the Federal standards, which is well above
the national average. With his oversight, Utah developed a
collaborative approach to meeting the Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations regulations. His approach was so successful that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has adopted it as a model.
Governor Leavitt has also led initiatives in our State to preserve
our open space, improve fisheries, upgrade sewer systems, and clean up
5,000 underground gas storage tanks, thus preventing
their contamination of Utah's water supply. Thanks to Governor
Leavitt's careful stewardship, Utah's natural resources have not only
survived a period of intense economic and population growth but have
been improved across the board.
Is it any wonder that President Bush looks to Governor Leavitt to
lead the charge on this very important front, when the Governor has so
successfully pursued a collaborative approach to improving the
environment?
To anyone who questions Michael Leavitt's commitment, I say: Look at
the record; it speaks for itself. We can also look at Utah's budget
during his administration.
In his 10 years as Governor, Mike Leavitt won a 41 percent increase
in spending on environmental protection, and that's after adjusting for
inflation. According to the Environmental Council of States, the
average per capita spending on the environment is $51.80. Under Michael
Leavitt, however, Utah surpassed that average, spending $62.31 per
capita on the environment. The average State spends about 1.4 percent
of its budget on the environment. Under Governor Leavitt's leadership,
Utah now spends 2 percent of its budget on the environment.
The record proves that Governor Leavitt is a champion of the
environment. But the record also informs us that he is one of the
finest public managers in the Nation. The Governor has worked
tirelessly for our State. Yet, he has found the time to serve as the
chair of the Council of State Governors, the Republican Governors'
Association, the Western Governors' Association, and the National
Governors' Association. You don't get there without being one of the
best, if not the best.
In 5 of Mike Leavitt's 10 years as Utah's chief executive, our State
has been ranked the best managed State. USA Today recently called Utah
the best fiscally managed State in the country. Even after the
extremely tough financial times faced by our States in recent years,
under Governor Leavitt, Utah has maintained its Triple A bond rating.
How could President Bush have found a better candidate to head up the
Environmental Protection Agency? The answer is he couldn't have.
And how does holding up Michael Leavitt's nomination help our
environment or our nation? We finally concluded it doesn't. The obvious
answer is: it doesn't. Clearly, confirming this nominee is in the best
interest of our environment and our Nation.
Finally, let me just say that I have known Mike Leavitt and his
wonderful wife Jackie for nearly 30 years. No one I know works harder,
is more fair and honest, is more capable, and is more sincere than my
good friend, the Governor of Utah. I urge my colleagues to join me in
confirming Michael Leavitt to fill one of the most important jobs in
government, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I thank all of those who are making this possible with an up-or-down
vote tomorrow morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
____________________