[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 153 (Tuesday, October 28, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13326-S13340]
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 PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
go into executive session to resume consideration of Executive Calendar
No. 405, 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 PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will now
be 60 minutes equally divided between the ranking members, or their
designees, and there will be 20 minutes under the control of the
Senator from New Jersey.
Who yields time?
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. I will use most of the 20
minutes I have available, and perhaps all of it. But first, I thank the
majority leader and the minority leader for accommodating my desire to
speak on the nomination of Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt to be
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency prior to the vote
to confirm him.
I was, unfortunately, not able to be here last night. So I appreciate
that I have a chance to make some remarks this morning.
A few weeks ago, I placed a ``hold'' on Governor Leavitt's nomination
because of serious concerns many of his constituents have raised about
his record of enforcing our national environmental laws.
The President has the right to nominate people of his choosing to
serve in his Cabinet. That, however, does not obligate anyone to vote
for each and every one of them.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not impugning Governor
Leavitt's character. He has been a public servant for many years and
has been credited with many significant accomplishments.
I will vote against confirming Governor Leavitt because I have not
had sufficient time to investigate the serious allegations that have
been brought to my attention.
In fairness to Governor Leavitt, I asked the Congressional Research
Service (CRS) to review and assess the allegations. In a few more days,
CRS staff would have been able to get back to me. Unfortunately, the
majority has seen fit to force a vote on this nominee today.
Governor Leavitt has waited 2 months. When former President Clinton
nominated Katie McGinty to be chair of the Council on Environmental
Quality, Republicans delayed her confirmation for more than a year.
Unfortunately, the majority did not honor the holds placed on this
nominee, so the process of vetting him properly has been short-
circuited. Consequently, we are being asked to vote to confirm an
individual nominated to be the nation's highest-ranking environmental
regulator--without the benefit of having some answers to some very
important questions.
The current ``tide'' of environmental protection in America is at low
ebb under the current administration. I don't have enough time here to
enumerate the hundreds of rollbacks and dilutions of our environmental
laws that President Bush and his administration have foisted on the
American people. Given such a state of affairs, I think it would be
wise to determine if the nominee shares the same careless disregard for
clean water, clean air, land conservation, and global warming as the
President.
I had planned to ask Governor Leavitt many questions based on
information provided to me by the southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and
other Utah conservation and citizens' groups. They have cast serious
doubt on the Governor's commitment to enforcing our laws to protect
human health and the environment.
[[Page S13327]]
In 1998, Governor Leavitt was quoted as saying:
The national government should establish standards. Local
governments must figure out how best to meet them . . .
governments must focus on outcomes, not programs.
I agree with the Governor's sentiment that outcomes are what count.
The important questions are: Are our rivers getting cleaner? Is the air
healthier? Are toxic sites being decontaminated?
On that score, our environmental laws and programs have a proven
track record. Even this White House has grudgingly acknowledged as
much.
The Office of Management and Budget issued a report recently which
concludes that the health and social benefits of enforcing tough clean
air regulations during the past decade have been 5 to 7 times greater
in economic terms than the costs of complying with the regulations.
When compared to the 1950s and 1960s, before most of our major
environmental laws were enacted, we have made outstanding progress.
Rivers like the Cuyahoga no longer catch on fire. Air pollution
inversions no longer kill 20 people and sicken 4000 more in one fell
swoop, like an incident in Donora, PA, in 1948.
These achievements have resulted from the careful implementation of
congressional laws. But those laws can only be effective if they are
voluntarily obeyed or enforced by EPA and the States. Regulations won't
do any good if they are not enforced.
We can be proud of the progress we have made over the past few
decades but there is so much more to be done to protect human health
and the environment. We can't stop now, but that is what President Bush
is trying to do, and I am concerned that is what Governor Leavitt will
try to do, too, if he is confirmed. Despite his commentary about
``balance'' and ``stewardship,'' Governor Leavitt's record portrays a
dramatically different approach to the environment. His record reveals
a disturbing tendency to place the short-sighted economic interests of
regulated industries above protecting the long-term health of the
public.
I will highlight just a few of more than a dozen examples which
illustrate this pattern. As I mentioned before, much of the information
that follows has come from citizens of Utah who visited my Senate
office here in Washington to complain about problems they saw with
respect to Governor Leavitt's willingness to protect their environment.
I might add that I know the State very well. I spend a lot of time in
Utah. I love it. I love the terrain. I love the Wasatch Mountains all
of that of which Utah residents are so proud.
Governor Leavitt has strongly supported something called the ``Legacy
Highway'' project. This highway was set to cut through highly
significant wetlands next to the Great Salt Lake that provide the
breeding ground for 500 American Bald Eagles.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last fall that the
Environmental Impact Statement the Governor's staff prepared was
invalid because it ignored obvious harmful impacts. To top that, the
alternative they chose would have violated the Clean Water Act.
In another instance, the Governor made a secret deal to remove 2.6
million acres from possible designation as ``wilderness''.
Utah's Sierra Club issued a statement that said:
Governor Mike Leavitt's environmental track record, which
includes working behind closed doors with Interior Secretary
Gale Norton to open up Utah's wildlands to polluting
industries, suggests that he will be a good fit for the Bush
administration, but a disappointing choice for Americans
concerned with environmental protection. . . .
Earlier this year, EPA released a report on the States' record of
enforcing the Clean Water Act. Utah received one of the lowest scores
for enforcement.
Governor Leavitt's ``hands-off'' approach is a recurring theme. He
has argued in favor of downsizing and even dismantling agencies like
the Environmental Protection Agency. It is not hard to imagine the
demoralizing impact it could have on EPA staff if the next
Administrator is on record saying that EPA should be dismantled. This
viewpoint reveals the importance Governor Leavitt places on protecting
our air, water, and land.
Do we really want to return to the days before the EPA was
established, when rivers caught on fire and people literally keeled
over from air pollution? I, for one, do not relish the results of
confirming a ``rollback'' Governor as the guardian of our Nation's
environment under a ``rollback'' administration!
Another widely reported matter of concern has to do with a fish
hatchery the Governor and his family have owned. The family was served
with 33 indictments for illegal fish transfers that helped to spread a
severe fish disease known as ``whirling disease.'' This is a serious
matter, but pales in comparison to the actions taken by Mr. Leavitt
once he became Governor. According to the Salt Lake Tribune and other
Utah papers, after being elected Governor, Mr. Leavitt had officials in
his administration transfer, demote, or fire as many as 70 State
employees who had worked on the fish hatchery indictments.
This whole affair definitely has a nasty smell, and it is not just
due to the dead fish!
Utah's Kennecott copper mine is reportedly the world's largest open-
pit mine. The ore extracted from this mine has brought enormous wealth
to its owners, but has been paid for by the public in the form of
extensive environmental damage. Acid mine drainage and the careless
dumping of waste rock have contaminated surface waters and groundwater
on an unprecedented scale. For at least 10 miles along the Oquirrhs
mountain face, clean water is all but impossible to find by the local
wildlife. Cyanide leach pads, acid mine drainage, and other forms of
dangerous contamination have spread across 20,000 acres of land.
Metallic contamination has reached Utah's Great Salt Lake and Jordan
River.
Mining has always come with a high environmental price tag, and I
will grant that some improvements have been made at Kennecott in
reducing its toxic air emissions. But what I find especially noteworthy
is that for nearly 20 years conservation and citizens' groups have
clamored for a clean-up plan for Kennecott. Yet conveniently, this
long-sought-after clean-up plan didn't make any headway until this
year, right after the Governor's August 11 nomination to become EPA's
Administrator. What a coincidence of timing. He has been Governor for
many years now. What accounts for this ``Road to Damascus'' conversion?
Is it political expediency?
Utah's U.S. Magnesium Corporation also illustrates Governor Leavitt's
environmental ``credentials'' for the job as EPA Administrator.
MagCorp, as it is called, is listed No. 1 on EPA's list of toxic
polluters. Some years, it falls to No. 2. At a minimum, it is one of
the nation's worst toxic polluters.
According to EPA's Toxic release Inventory, MagCorp accounted for
more than 90 percent of total chlorine releases in the United States
from 1998 to 2000. Since 2000, MagCorp's chlorine emissions have
decreased and it now accounts for only 80 percent of the Nation's
chlorine releases. But this slight decrease has not resulted from any
enforcement action taken by Governor Leavitt's administration. Rather,
the reductions are attributable to actions taken by the EPA.
My question is, Why did the EPA have to step in to enforce the law?
Tests of the company's waste-water ditches have revealed dioxin
contamination at 170 parts per billion. That is 170 times higher than
EPA's ``action level'' for clean-up. EPA eventually had to step in
where the State had failed to do so. That strikes me as a serious lapse
in enforcement responsibilities.
Remember that Governor Leavitt has said, ``The national government
should establish standards. Local governments must figure out how best
to meet them.'' But in case after case of significant environmental
damage, we find that the Governor appears to believe that ``he who
enforces least enforces best.'' What good are environmental health
standards, if they are being ignored, year after year? Those standards
exist for sound scientific reasons and are developed only after years
of extensive research and independent peer review.
The plain fact is this: toxic pollution is dangerous to our health,
especially to the health of our children and grandchildren. We may not
immediately see the lowered I.Q. scores, cancer ``clusters,'' or
autoimmune diseases, but make no mistake, they are
[[Page S13328]]
among the tragic results when polluters are allowed to flaunt with the
law with impunity. Failure to enforce our environmental laws portrays
either a sad ignorance of the health costs or, even worse, a knowing
disregard for them. In recent years, scientific analysis of the highest
caliber has shown that, if anything, our environmental health standards
may be too lax.
We have learned, for instance, that children under 2 are 10 times
more likely to develop cancer when exposed to the same toxic
concentration as adults. An article that appeared in the New England
Journal of Medicine last April reported that the concentration of lead
in the blood which can lower a child's I.Q. is lower than previously
believed. In the latest study published in the New England Journal of
Medicine, researchers report that at blood-lead levels allowed under
the current health standard, children's I.Q. scores declined by an
average of 7.4 points.
We will not be well served by an EPA Administrator who continues, or
even accelerates, the pace at which President Bush is dismantling our
fundamental environmental protections. The last person we need as
Administrator is someone whose philosophy on key environmental issues
is less regulation, no matter what the cost to public health and the
environment.
I would add that it is not just the Sierra Club and the Southern Utah
Wilderness Association who have voiced opposition to this nomination.
Rocky Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, who opposed the Governor's
``Legacy Highway'' project, said:
On environmental issues governor Leavitt and I differ
greatly. He's had some great opportunities to provide real
leadership, but I think he has been unwilling to spend the
political capital to make the important changes. We have
serious air quality issues that are simply going to get worse
without strong leadership.
The last 3 years have been the ``darkest hour'' of our Nation's
commitment to environmental protection since EPA was created. This
White House has repeatedly foisted its penchant for secrecy and cover-
up on the Environmental Protection Agency. It held back the Children's
Environmental Health Report for 9 months. It has hidden and
misrepresented the impacts of its New Source Review rule. And for the
first time ever, White House officials insisted that the global warming
chapter be deleted from EPA's Air Quality Trends Report. You do not
have to be an atmospheric scientist or professor to know what is
happening because of global warming. We see the trend all over, and we
see the consequences of that trend. But the administration will have
none of that.
Earlier this year, the administration tried to prevent the release of
a report on EPA's abysmal enforcement record. I am thankful the report
was leaked to the press. Now we have some of the facts regarding EPA's
enforcement record under President Bush:
Enforcement actions against some of the worst environmental violators
have been cut by at least 45 percent;
Half of the facilities that violate their toxic limits do so by 100
percent;
13 percent violate their limits by a staggering 1,000 percent; and
80 percent of Clean Water Act violators never receive a formal
enforcement action.
This is a total disregard for the law. I think it's time to end the
disregard, the secrecy, the obfuscation, and the wholesale abdication
of responsibility for protecting two of the Nation's most precious
resources: human health and our environment.
My fear is that this abdication won't end with the nominee the Senate
is poised to confirm; it will get worse. Therefore, I must vote ``No.''
And I hope many others will vote no to show that we are opposed to this
degradation of our environment and to this willful ignorance of the
costs that degradation will impose on our society.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I had a hard time figuring out whom the
distinguished Senator from New Jersey was talking about.
Let me just outline how this side is going to use its 30 minutes. I
have a few comments to make, and I may respond to some of the things
the Senator said about Governor Leavitt. I understand Senator Bond
wants to come down and have about 5 minutes.
I ask if Senator Jeffords would mind if Senator Hatch could have our
last 10 minutes because he was not able to spend as much time in the
Chamber yesterday in order to respond to anything else that has been
said about Governor Leavitt.
Mr. JEFFORDS. No objection.
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you very much. I appreciate the cooperation we have
had.
First of all, as far as the comments the Senator from New Jersey made
about Governor Leavitt are concerned, talking about the Legacy Parkway,
let me just mention to him that the construction on the highway began
only after Utah had the legal authorization to do so from the various
States and the Federal agencies. The 2,000 acres of wetlands would be
protected as a nature preserve.
But I think the most significant point, since he is criticizing the
administration along with Governor Leavitt, is that all required
Federal approvals for the Legacy Parkway project were issued by the
Clinton administration after 6 years of study, public comment, and
legal review. That was the Clinton administration.
Secondly, on the water quality report, first of all, the report they
are quoting is from PIRG, which is another environmental extremist
group. It is not part of the Federal Government. The truth is, the PIRG
report relied on incomplete data to reach the findings for Utah. When
the Utah data was corrected, Utah showed one of the lowest Clean Water
Act noncompliance rates in the country.
For example, between January of 2000 and March of 2001, Utah's
noncompliance rate placed Utah among the top 10 States with the lowest
rates of noncompliance. Right now, 73 percent of the streams in Utah
meet all Federal and State requirements. That is a 24-percent
improvement over the time since Governor Leavitt took office. It is one
of his greatest accomplishments, and here he is being criticized for
it.
I have to go back and reread--I wish there were more time to do it. I
certainly appreciate Senator Jeffords' comments when he said--and this
is a quote--
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
some 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
[various matters].
Gov. Bill Richardson, a Governor with Governor Leavitt, said:
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.
That is Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, one of his biggest fans.
We have talked over and over about the accomplishments of Governor
Leavitt. He was the chairman of the National Governors Association. He
is chairman of the Republican Governors Association, chairman of the
Western Governors Association. Under his leadership, the visibility in
the West has improved. There have been accolades all over the country
on the job he has done as the cochairman of the Western Regional Air
Partnership cleaning up the air.
During his 11-year term, we already mentioned 73 percent of Utah
streams currently meet all water quality standards compared to 59
percent 10 years ago. And it has all happened since Governor Leavitt
took office.
I do not understand at this late hour that finally someone is coming
and criticizing him. I have been critical of the debate so far because
they have not really talked about Governor Leavitt, except in praising
him, but they have talked about misrepresenting the Bush
administration's environmental progress.
Now, I think something has to be said that, prior to his markup,
committee Democrats submitted 400 questions to Governor Leavitt. And if
you compare that to other administrations, when Carol Browner was up in
1993--remember that--she had only 67 questions that came from
Republicans--not 400; 67. And, of course, for William Reilly there were
just a handful of questions at that time.
Also, going back to the number of days it took between the nomination
[[Page S13329]]
and actually becoming the Administrator, for William Reilly it was just
13 days; for Carol Browner, just 11 days; and for Governor Whitman, it
was 13 days. Now, this has taken 55 days. And when Senator Lautenberg,
a few minutes ago, said he has not had time to look at it, my gosh, if
he did not need any more than 10 or 13 days for the others, what is
wrong with having 55 days? It is certainly more than enough time.
We desperately need to have this man in this office. For weeks we
have heard nothing about Mike Leavitt and everything about President
Bush, and yet I would like to suggest to you that President Bush's
record and accomplishments are second to none.
Let me quote Greg Easterbrook from an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times.
He is the senior editor of the very liberal New Republic. He doesn't
say many good things about Republicans. He is a Democrat. He is very
sympathetic to their causes. He says 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.''
Last night I went over all of the accomplishments of the Bush
administration. The fact that the Clear Skies legislation is coming up
and is going to be the largest mandated reduction in pollutants of any
President in history, a 70-percent reduction in sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide and mercury. On cleaner fuels and engines, there is the
diesel rule. I am prepared to talk about these.
At this point I yield to the minority side for any comments they want
to make because, quite frankly, I want to be in a position to respond.
I appreciate Senator Jeffords allowing the senior Senator from Utah to
have the last 10 minutes of our time. We will wait for other Members to
arrive.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I yield the 7 minutes remaining from
the time of the Senator from New Jersey to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I appreciate the time. As I understand
it, I am yielded how many minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise as a proud member of the
Environmental Committee and the chair of the Democratic environmental
team. I will be voting no on the Leavitt nomination. The reason is,
while I am not pinning all the terrible decisions of this
administration regarding the environment on Mr. Leavitt--clearly, he
was not there for those--I was very distressed that the questions I
asked him were simply papered over or, in some cases--six cases--there
was no answer at all. I will explain in a moment.
I am going to divert for a sentence or two to again express my
concern about the fires burning out of control in my State. I send my
prayers to the people of my State and thank the President for declaring
it a disaster area. This was absolutely necessary because we need help
from all over the country. These fires are far from out, and the winds
are unpredictable.
Our 7,000 firefighters, the heroes of the day again, are out of
breath and need relief. We cannot stand back and say the winds will
dictate what happens. We have to save lives and homes. I will be going
to the State as soon as I can, when it is appropriate, and offer all
the help we can.
My colleagues have been so kind and so good in asking questions.
Right now we have lost 14 people, 1,518 homes; 501,000 acres are
burning, four times the size of Chicago. It is a travesty.
Getting back to the issue at hand, I do not think it is terribly
comforting to the American people to hear that the questions I asked
were not answered--many of them--because they know we have had many
rollbacks. As Senator Lautenberg so eloquently said, I have a little
scroll I could bring to the Chamber, if I were allowed--I think the
rules do not allow for that--and I could let out the scroll all the way
past where the Presiding Officer is sitting. It would list, in fairly
large type, 300 environmental rollbacks.
I was stunned to hear a Senator on the radio today say that this
administration has the greatest environmental record of any President.
I can't even respond to that except with the truth. The truth is, we
have documented 300 rollbacks.
One of my leaders on this issue, in addition to Senator Lautenberg,
is Senator Jeffords. He has been fighting for clean air harder and
longer and with more focus than anyone I know. He could tell you
chapter and verse why we are losing the battle to clean up our air.
Every time the administration calls something ``Clear Skies, beautiful
forests,'' or ``lovely day,'' it is just the opposite when one cuts
through it. It is essentially special interest legislation that is
rolling back the progress we have made.
If you go to any school in this country and ask the children, do you
have asthma, does someone in your family have asthma, do any of your
friends, literally almost half the classroom will raise their hands
high. This is not the way it used to be.
This is the time when we need strong environmental leadership.
Governor Leavitt is one of the nicest people I have ever met. We had a
couple of great meetings. But he essentially rolled over my questions,
in many cases not even answering them at all, just as if I hadn't asked
anything.
Let me tell you about what happened this summer. I call this past
summer ``toxic summer.'' Senator Jeffords and I held a press
conference. Senator Lautenberg was there. We documented what has
happened just this summer. Let me give you a quick reason why we need a
real environmental leader at the EPA.
``Toxic-site cleanups slowing, report says,'' Sacramento Bee.
Spending on the cleanup of hazardous waste sites is slowing
under the Bush administration, and that could delay the
cleanup of three dozen sites in California, including several
around Sacramento. . . .
U.S. is Seeking to Limit States' Influence on Offshore
Decisions; California Officials Denounce the Proposed
Revisions as an Effort to Bypass Court Rulings. . . .
Whatever happened to States' rights? I thought this administration
liked to help States. They are rolling over the States, if the States
want to do more cleanup, if the States want to protect their coasts.
EPA's 9/11 Air Ratings Distorted. . . .
We all know Senator Clinton did a masterful job of holding up this
nomination until she got some promises from the administration that she
could see exactly what went on behind the scenes and how ``in the days
after the terrorist attack, White House officials persuaded the EPA to
minimize its assessment of the dangers posed by airborne dust and
debris from the skyscrapers' collapse.'' Withholding information is
sick. There is something terribly wrong with this administration.
Bush Eases Clean Air Act for Industries.
In one of the broadest changes to air-pollution regulations
since the Clean Air Act was first approved in 1970, the Bush
administration . . . eased smog rules affecting more than 500
older power plants and some 20,000 aging factories. . . .
This is the issue Senator Jeffords has championed.
This is another one from the Los Angeles Times, just this summer.
This isn't all the 300. This is just this summer.
EPA Won't Regulate ``Greenhouse Gases''; Environmental
Groups' Bid for the Agency to Cut New-Vehicle Emissions is
Denied. California May Sue, Saying the Decision Threatens
State Efforts.
Later on this week we will vote on the McCain-Lieberman bill. The
administration opposes it.
I ask if I may have 2 more minutes from my friend.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from California 1 additional
minute.
Mrs. BOXER. The last chart is frightening.
EPA Eases Rules on PCB-Tainted Properties.
These are the most polluted, dangerous properties. People were not
allowed to sell those properties or transfer those properties until
they had a plan that EPA signed off on and approved.
Madam President, we need an EPA Administrator with guts and strength
and the ability to stand up and say he is going to fight for the
environment. The fact that he did not answer a number of my questions
tells me that I am
[[Page S13330]]
afraid that, in the room when they are debating these issues, Mike
Leavitt will be a full team player with the Bush administration and not
a team player for the health of the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield time to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, what I want the American people to
understand is that this administration's environmental policies are
awful, starting with arsenic, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
clean air, and what they have not done with Superfund. We can go
through a litany of bad decisions. We are going to have a bipartisan
bill brought up this week dealing with global warming. The most glaring
issue is this administration doesn't believe global warming is taking
place.
So when Mike Leavitt called me and said he had been asked by the
President to be the EPA Administrator, I said: Mike, why would you want
this job, with what this administration has done on the environment?
I said: I like you and I will do everything I can to help you. But
you should understand that this administration's environmental policy
is the worst this country has ever had.
So I have done what I could to help Mike Leavitt get through this
process.
The main thing I wanted to say and why I have such warm feelings
about Mike Leavitt goes back many years ago. I was a sophomore in
college. I went there on an athletic scholarship at a junior college in
southern Utah called the College of Southern Utah. My wife and I
decided we were going to get married between my sophomore and junior
years, and that we did. Prior to doing that, I went to an insurance
agent in Cedar City, UT, by the name of Dixie Leavitt. I didn't know
who he was.
I said: Mr. Leavitt, the reason I want to buy a health insurance
policy is because my wife may get pregnant and we don't have the money
to pay the hospital bill. I want to make sure the insurance policy
covers pregnancy.
So we went away to another school, several hundred miles away, to
Utah State University. A couple years later, she became pregnant. Well,
we were going through the process of contacting doctors, and she has
the baby and the insurance policy does not cover maternity. So I call
Dixie Leavitt long distance, which I could not afford, to Cedar City,
UT.
I said: Mr. Leavitt, I don't know if you remember, but I bought an
insurance policy from you. The only reason I bought it was for
maternity, and it doesn't cover that.
Without him saying he didn't remember or anything else, he said: Send
me the bills. He personally paid those bills.
Now, I have to think some of that goodness rubbed off on his son,
Michael Leavitt. I think the story about Dixie Leavitt, whom I have
never talked to since I talked to him on the telephone many decades
ago, speaks volumes about the kind of man that Mike Leavitt must be
because of his father.
I am sorry that Governor Leavitt has accepted this job. I am going to
do everything I can, and I hope it works out. Governor Whitman was a
total disappointment to me. She had a much stronger environmental
record than does Mike Leavitt when she was Governor of New Jersey.
With all the bad things that this administration has done on the
environment, it is important to note that at least in this instance
they chose a man who has character. I hope that character will come
through in the environmental policy of this country and override the
bad policies of this administration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 22 minutes on the majority side and
5 minutes on the minority side.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me take a minute or two, and then I will yield to
Senator Bond. First of all, the Senator from California was talking
about the dismal record in Superfund of this administration, and the
fact that not enough money has been spent. I want to suggest that there
is no correlation between the money raised when they had the tax and
the money spent on Superfund cleanups.
In 1996, during the Clinton administration, the tax fund was at its
highest level. Yet money spent by the Clinton administration for
cleanup was near a 10-year low.
To contrast that, in President Bush's 2004 budget, the money for
actual cleanup is near a 10-year high, while the fund is at a low
point. In fact, the 2004 request of the President is $1.38 billion,
which is higher than 7 of the 8 years of the Clinton administration. So
I don't think there is anything to that particular argument.
I also remind the Senator of this: When she talked about people
praising the President for his environmental record, many of these
people praising the President are not Republicans, they are not
pundits. These are Democrats and liberals, who are giving him credit,
such as Gregg Easterbrook, senior editor of the liberal New Republic
magazine, as I have mentioned.
At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on
behalf of Governor Leavitt. I think the President has made an excellent
choice in nominating this Governor, who has a great record. I think the
environment and the Environmental Protection Agency will be well served
by his nomination. At a time when there are many pressing issues facing
us in the environmental area, it is important that we have a good
leader.
Governor Leavitt is a good leader. He is a Governor, as I was
formerly, and I know that he has brought leadership and management
skills and a State perspective. He was very successful in Utah, and he
will bring success, as the Nation's longest serving Governor, to the
EPA. I believe he stands for environmental principles that we
desperately need: collaboration, not polarization; national standards
and neighborhood solutions; rewarding results, not programs; science
for facts, process for priorities; markets before mandates. All of
these things are necessary to move forward in improving our
environment.
Governor Leavitt has a record of environmental achievement to match
his environmental vision. As my colleagues from Utah will describe
shortly, because of him the air in Utah and the West is cleaner and
clearer. Visibility over the Grand Canyon has improved because of the
Governor's role with the Western Regional Air Partnership. I know our
friends from Utah are proud that Utah has among the Nation's cleanest
watersheds. That has improved dramatically during the Leavitt
administration. Utah's most environmentally sensitive land is better
protected because of Governor Leavitt's service.
Unfortunately, Governor Leavitt is entering a job in a city where
political opponents try to use the environment to make political gains.
We heard charges a few minutes ago that he had not answered all the
questions. The interesting part is that we went back and looked at
similar questions asked of previous nominees, particularly
Administrator Brown in the last administration. She was not able to
answer those questions dealing with the internal operations of the EPA
either. At the time, we understood, and the Republicans confirmed her.
I am delighted that we are moving forward to confirm Governor Leavitt
because he cannot be expected to know everything going on inside the
EPA. As far as the record of this administration under President Bush,
environmental and health benefits from drastically reduced levels of
NOX and SOX and mercury pollution in the
President's Clear Skies proposal are being held hostage by those who
want to use global warming as a political issue against the President.
Environmental benefits, improved energy security, and more efficient
and reliable electricity protection in New Source Review improvements
are being attacked and blocked by the President's political opponents.
Even my own modest incremental suggestions for improved environmental
collaboration in the transportation bill were leaked to the press,
mischaracterized by the very environmental stakeholders, some of whom
we worked with to formulate those improvements.
[[Page S13331]]
Fortunately, President Bush is maintaining a strong commitment to the
environment and the Environmental Protection Agency. In the face of
funding a war on terrorism, growing deficits, and, yes, even tax cuts,
President Bush has requested more money for EPA. President Bush's $7.6
billion request for the EPA is $300 million more than President Clinton
requested for the EPA in his last budget. President Bush's $431 million
request for EPA enforcement is the largest request for Federal
environmental enforcement funds in our Nation's history. I just hope
that my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and I have enough money in the
budget of VA-HUD to meet those goals. It is questionable at this point.
But we certainly want to achieve the President's funding.
Just last week in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we were
able to pick up the broken transportation pieces and fashion a
bipartisan agreement on environmental provisions relating to NEPA and
the Clean Air Act. I think this spirit of cooperation can serve this
body and our Nation's highway needs well, and maybe we can even flow
that cooperation into the Leavitt nomination.
I urge my colleagues to follow this new bipartisanship and move
forward and support the nomination of Governor Leavitt without delay.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise to support the nomination of
Governor Leavitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency. I have worked with him in the past on education issues and
found him to be insightful and, most importantly, cooperative. That is
what I seek from this administration--cooperation. My support for
Governor Leavitt brings with it the renewed call for cooperation from
this administration on outstanding information requests that I have on
important environmental issues impacting the health of our citizens and
our environment. I will continue to pursue these requests with Governor
Leavitt when he becomes Administrator of the EPA.
This vote should not be seen as an endorsement of the Bush
administration's environmental policy but a vote in support of a fine
and honorable man who has an extremely difficult job ahead. I look
forward to working with him to improve the environmental protection
that our country deserves.
Madam President, it has surprised me to hear some Senators use the
word obstruction in the context of Governor Leavitt's nomination to be
the new Administrator of the EPA. It was a surprise because that is
exactly what this administration has been doing--obstructing Congress
and our legitimate requests for information. Much of the obstruction
has been related to the unfortunate and probably illegal activities of
the administration on New Source Review and on other important air
quality matters such as multi-pollutant legislation.
As Senators may know, the General Accounting Office released a report
last week which looked into the effect that the administration's
proposed NSR changes would have on pending enforcement actions. That
report strongly suggests that administration political appointees were
well aware that the proposed changes would negatively affect swift and
environmentally protective resolution of those enforcement cases. Yet
they proceeded with the changes anyway.
In the course of the GAO investigation, GAO conducted some very
interesting interviews that bear on Congress's right of access to
agency information. In GAO's February 12, 2003, interview with Bob
Fabricant, then-EPA general counsel, the interview notes say, ``Mr.
Fabricant mentioned that they were in the process of putting together a
confidentially agreement [to provide access to sensitive NSR documents]
with the SEPW staff last year but they never completed the agreement.''
When asked by GAO why the agreement was not completed, ``. . . Mr.
Fabricant and Mr. Valeri laughed and responded that the agreement was
not completed because of the results of the mid-term elections.'' The
GAO interview asked, ``. . . why the results of the election should
affect GAO and Congress's ability to conduct oversight. Mr. Fabricant
did not respond directly to this question but did say that his
understanding is that GAO's access to agency documents is governed by
the position of the Congressional requestor.''
This new assertion by the agency will come as a very large surprise
to Senators on both sides of the aisles, both ranking and chair,
particularly for those whose information requests were made while they
were chairmen, as I was, and are still unsatisfied. It appears that the
Agency and the administration have adopted a posture, which is not
defensible by any statute or precedent, that they will just wait for
House of Congress to change parties and ignore requests for information
that is their duty and responsibility to provide in a timely fashion. I
would hope that my colleagues would see the peril in any administration
implementing such a cavalier attitude toward the Nation's elected
representatives.
The administration has shown an active disrespect for the legislative
branch of government which is most disturbing. This pattern is becoming
abundantly clear, whether it is vital environmental and public health
information or important intelligence and national security data. This
is not a healthy situation for reasoned public policy debates or a
well-functioning democracy.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first let me say to my friend from
Vermont that is an excellent statement, and I share his view on the
qualifications of our nominee. I look forward to his becoming a
historic Administrator of the EPA.
I would like to yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes so that I can ensure the
senior Senator from Utah has the final 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me just mention a few things. It seems as if we
really do not need to talk about Governor Leavitt. I agree with the
praises that many people have made of him. I believe that he is
probably the best, most qualified nominee we have ever had, but let me
take this time to mention some other things.
I already talked about the record, about the Clear Skies legislation
mandating a 70-percent reduction in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
and mercury. No President in history has ever mandated that. I look
forward to getting to the Clear Skies legislation.
As to cleaner fuels and engines, the diesel rule has been applauded
all around for the amount of reduction it will bring. The rule
requiring new heavy-duty trucks and buses to run cleaner will cut
harmful pollutants by 95 percent. That is a huge amount.
Also, in terms of enforcement, I talked about these in more detail
last night, but the President has done more in terms of settlements.
Just in this short period of time he has been President we have had
settlements with Virginia Electric Power, and they are going to spend
$1.2 billion to reduce pollutants. The Archer Daniel Midland settlement
has taken place under this administration. It is going to total $335
million that will go toward cleaning up the environment; Alcoa, $2.5
million to fund environmental projects; Lion Oil Company will spend
$2.5 million to install state-of-the-art pollution control technologies
throughout its refinery; and the settlement with Toyota, the same
thing, $34 million. These are all settlements in the Bush
administration. They were not settled during the Clinton
administration. So he has that record, and it is a record that is
better than any previous administration.
In terms of his budget proposal, I think the Senator from Missouri
covered that very well. In cleaner water, we have legislation right now
in the committee that I chair, and with the cooperation of Senator
Jeffords, we have now passed out a nuclear security bill, waste water
security bill, and a chemical security bill. Hopefully, they will be
taken up and passed before long.
As far as this administration, on brownfields, nobody has been able
to hold a candle to what President Bush and his administration have
done in brownfields. I am very sensitive to this because I had an
amendment on the brownfields bill that would include petroleum sites,
some 200,000 petroleum sites, and that has been used as an example for
the greatest single area of accomplishment, in terms of cleaning up
these sites. We are talking about
[[Page S13332]]
brownfields as opposed to Superfund sites. The legislation will
significantly increase the pace of brownfields cleanups. President
Bush's 2004 budget proposal provides $210 million, more than twice the
level of funding prior to the passage of this legislation. So I would
just say that I join with the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Trust
for Public Land in applauding the President for the accomplishments he
has made in brownfields, certainly much better than any other
administration.
Then lastly, I would just say that the President has actually done
not just good enforcement but smart enforcement. Over the last two
fiscal years, the EPA and the Department of Justice enforcement has
obtained $8 billion in environmental remediation. This is the best
consecutive 2 years of enforcement of any prior administration on
record.
I repeat that. In his enforcement, this is the best consecutive 2
years of enforcement of any prior administration on record--the Clinton
administration and the previous Bush administration. In fiscal year
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. I think that is consistent
with the fundamental belief of this President that he does not want to
just go out and punish people. He does not want to use that for the
mark or the indicator as to what kind of jobs have been done. He wants
to help people, help people get sites cleaned up.
Comments have been made about the Superfund by the previous speakers.
I would only say that the amount of money that has been appropriated
for cleanup of Superfund sites is higher than any other administration
that this President actually has for the 2004 budget. I appreciate
that.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of
Governor Michael Leavitt to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and to speak more generally on my concerns regarding
the impact of EPA policies on environmental issues in California.
I have many concerns about the Bush administration's commitment to
advancing strong environmental policy. However, because I believe that
it is important for a President to be able to select his own Cabinet, I
do not oppose the President's nomination of Governor Leavitt to be
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is only in
exceptional cases that I believe the Senate in its role of advice and
consent should reject a nominee.
Governor Leavitt will be assuming leadership of the EPA at a critical
time. The Agency stands at a crossroads in its mission. I strongly
believe that the administration's environmental policies thus far have
moved the EPA in the wrong direction. It will require strong leadership
from Governor Leavitt to steer EPA back onto a progressive course.
Many environmental issues must be addressed in the coming 2 years on
both a national and State level. I look forward to working with
Governor Leavitt if confirmed as Administrator of the EPA, and I am
certain that together we will be able to find innovative and efficient
solutions to the environmental problems confronting California.
I would like to discuss a few of the issues.
First, I would like to begin by asking Governor Leavitt to take a
definitive stance in the battle against climate change. There is strong
evidence that most of the global warming that has occurred during the
past 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Shamefully, the White House under the Bush administration has chosen
to disregard this worldwide problem by thwarting efforts to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions.
And given the overwhelming evidence of U.S. culpability regarding
greenhouse gas emissions, EPA needs to take a strong stance regarding
the enactment of stringent rules and regulations.
The United States must catch up to the rest of the modern world in
the battle against climate change.
Voluntary programs are not sufficient. They barely work--and
certainly not to the extent necessary to reduce emissions.
We must work to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to
merely reducing emissions intensity in the manner proposed by the White
House.
Even if we achieve the administration's goals of reducing emissions
intensity by 18 percent, the actual amount of emissions will still
likely increase.
The recent revisions to the Clean Air Act's New Source Review rules
are one example of the Bush administration's disregard for air quality
control. These revisions allow aging and inefficient power plants whose
permits are up for renewal to continue operating in the exact same
manner--environmentally speaking--that they did decades ago.
For example, a coal power plant can conduct major repairs and parts
replacement, without updating the pollution control equipment.
It has been years since the problem associated with clean air and
powerplants became apparent to everyone, and yet the current
administration has pushed through regulations that will let the
pollution continue unabated.
I look forward to the upcoming Senate debate and vote on the McCain-
Lieberman climate change bill this week. In anticipation of this vote,
I encourage the Agency to take a firm stance on climate change.
I want to turn now to address a very important issue for California
voters: the joint State-Federal CALFED program designed to improve
California's water supply, fishery resources and water quality.
I have been extremely disappointed to date at EPA's lack of
involvement in CALFED. EPA can and should take a role in CALFED's water
quality program.
I urge the next Administrator of EPA to work closely with California
on water quality. Here are some important steps EPA could take:
The CALFED plan proposes to take action on wastewater treatment,
bromide reduction at municipal water intakes and new efforts to stem
contaminants from abandoned mines.
These actions will be spliced with source water protection, new
health effects research on Delta water, as well as comprehensive
monitoring and assessment of Delta drinking water quality.
Finally, to assure progress, public and peer review processes will
monitor compliance with drinking water standards, and measure
performance against consumer water rates.
If EPA partners with California on this program, the benefits could
include better tasting water at lower costs, a longer life for
Californians' plumbing and consumer appliances, and more reliability
from recycling and groundwater storage programs.
A decade ago, there were efforts to deregulate a portion of the
radioactive waste stream and allow these wastes to be either recycled
into consumer products or disposed of in local municipal landfills.
This effort created such a firestorm of public concern that the
Congress prohibited it in the 1992 Energy Policy Act.
Since that time, there has been no effort to try again to deregulate
radioactive waste--until now.
Recently, the EPA has announced that in the next few weeks it intends
to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider
deregulating the manner of disposal of radioactive wastes.
This action would allow radioactive wastes to be sent to landfills
that were neither designed nor licensed to handle such wastes.
Radioactively contaminated materials could also be recycled into
consumer products, where they could end up in everything from
children's braces to spoons and automobiles.
These are not theoretical risks. The Los Angeles Times has reported
that the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura County, CA shipped
hundreds of tons of radioactively contaminated metals from
decommissioned old reactors to a metal recycler in San Pedro. That
radioactively contaminated metal was then melted down and shipped out
into the consumer metal supply.
It is my understanding that these Advanced Notices of Proposed
Rulemaking--designed to once again try the controversial deregulation
of radioactive waste--are being held until after the confirmation of
the EPA Administrator has been addressed.
It is my hope that Governor Leavitt, if confirmed as the new
Administrator, will take a hard look at this issue and block this
misguided proposal. I know I will be keeping a close eye on the matter.
I would like to now move on to an issue of paramount importance to
California.
[[Page S13333]]
The degraded air quality in California has reached a crisis point. It
is imperative that EPA addresses the various factors contributing to
air pollution in California with immediate regulatory efforts.
A bit of statistical background is necessary to understand the
breadth of the air quality problems.
California has the worst air quality in the Nation. For example, Los
Angeles is the only area in the country that has ``extreme non-
attainment'' for air pollution standards.
Two thousand three has been the worst year for smog in southern
California since 1997. The Los Angeles basin has experienced unsafe
levels of ozone approximately every other day since the first of May.
Legislators and regulators from California are working together to
address the sources of air pollution.
I am fighting to remove language inserted into the VA/HUD spending
bill that would prohibit California from limiting the amount of
pollution that can be released from small engines, those that are less
than 175 horsepower, such as lawnmowers and small tractors.
The California Air Resource Board recently approved landmark
regulations--which were written with significant input from the small
engine industry--that would set strict pollution standards on engines
of 25 horsepower or less, but these regulations would effectively be
preempted if the language in the VA/HUD bill is signed into law.
These small engines release a disproportionately large amount of
pollution based on their size. In California alone, these engines emit
the pollution equivalent of 18.3 million cars. Appropriate regulations
could cut the emissions from small engines in half.
The EPA must take another look at regulating the obscene amount of
pollution that comes from small engines such as lawnmowers and leaf
blowers. It is my sincere hope that upon confirmation, Governor Leavitt
will direct the EPA to examine this issue further.
The EPA can also help improve California's air quality by granting
California a waiver to the Federal mandate requiring States to add
oxygenates such as ethanol to its gasoline.
Ethanol is a highly volatile substance. According to the California
Department of Environmental Quality, ethanol actually appears to have
resulted in an increase in the amount of volatile organic gases that
are released into the atmosphere. These gases are implicated in
increase levels of smog and ozone in our air.
Ethanol use has increased tremendously in California. In fact, 70
percent of the gasoline used in southern California and 57 percent of
that in northern California is now blended with ethanol.
In fact, the conference committee on the energy bill is debating an
ethanol mandate that would almost triple the amount of ethanol used in
the Nation's gas supply.
California, however, can meet clean air standards without ethanol or
MTBE. These oxygenates are not necessary to achieve cleaner air. It is
imperative to examine the role of increased ethanol use on current
higher smog levels.
Winston Hickox, Secretary of the California Environmental Protection
Agency, concluded that:
. . . our current best estimate is that the increase in the
use of ethanol-blended gasoline has likely resulted in about
a one percent increase in emissions of volatile organic gases
(VOC) in the SCAQMD [South Coast Air Quality Management
District] in the summer of 2003. Given the very poor air
quality in the region and the great difficulty of reaching
the current federal ozone standard by the required attainment
date of 2010, an increase of this magnitude is of great
concern. Clearly, these emission increases have resulted in
higher ozone levels this year than what would have otherwise
occurred, and are responsible for at least some of the rise
in ozone levels that have been observed.
I urge the EPA to stop the legal wrangling, accept the ruling of the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and issue the waiver to improve
California air quality.
I now want to discuss my concerns surrounding two specific water
contamination issues in California: groundwater contamination by
perchlorate, and the deplorable state of the New River that flows along
the border between California and Mexico.
Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and man-made chemical that
is used as the primary ingredient of solid rocket fuel propellant.
Widespread perchlorate contamination was found in California drinking
water in 1997, most of it from the manufacture and improper disposal of
the chemical.
According to the EPA, perchlorate poses a serious health risk to
human health because it interferes with the proper function of the
thyroid and can potentially cause tumors.
I urge Governor Leavitt, if confirmed as Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, to both hasten and increase EPA's
efforts to identify and hold accountable those entities that have
contaminated California's groundwater.
To date, perchlorate has been detected in more than 300 groundwater
wells operated by 80 different agencies throughout California.
Collectively, these agencies serve 24.8 million people.
In the Inland Empire, a 7-mile plume has contaminated 22 drinking
water wells, jeopardizing water supplies for approximately 500,000
residents.
The next EPA Administrator must direct the Agency to use its powers
under Superfund law to compel the companies responsible for this
contamination to participate in its cleanup.
On a broader scale, the next EPA Administrator must direct the Agency
to set a federal drinking water standard for perchlorate as soon as
possible, both to clarify clean-up standards and to provide oversight
for the cleanup efforts.
There have been recent suggestions that it will take another 6 years
before the EPA can issue a clean-up standard. Six years is an
unconscionable delay given that we are discussing pollution of our
drinking water supply.
EPA should take conduct site-specific assessments to evaluate the
level of perchlorate contamination, and when appropriate, provide
replacement water for the communities suffering from contaminated
water.
This is a matter of utmost urgency for California because human
health is at stake. I strongly believe the EPA must both accelerate and
strengthen its response to this problem.
I also want to draw the EPA Administrator's attention to the status
of the New River, which flows along the border between California and
Mexico.
The New River has been consistently named one of the most polluted
rivers in the United State by American Rivers.
The New River flows North from the Mexicali Valley into California's
Imperial Valley, carrying with it vast quantities of urban runoff, such
as raw sewage, industrial and municipal wastes, such as pollution from
factories, and agricultural runoff, including pesticides.
Here is one startling statistic: Every day, the river pumps between
20 to 25 million gallons of raw sewage into California.
This is such a massive amount of horrific pollution flowing into
California every day that we desperately need the help of EPA and the
Federal Government to develop a solution to this problem.
The EPA has worked in Mexico to build two sewage treatment plants;
however, I urge the agency to focus efforts on clean-up strategies in
California.
In Utah, Governor Leavitt demonstrated his commitment to clean water
when he supported the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. This
legislation helped reduce salt and agricultural drainage, and has had
beneficial ramifications in California as well.
I applaud Governor Leavitt's efforts in this arena, and I would very
much like to see his Clean Water Initiatives expanded to include other
imperilled rivers such as the New River in California.
I must also voice my concern about the status of the Superfund Trust
Fund. In 1980, citizen concern and outrage over highly toxic sites led
to the creation of the EPA Superfund program to locate, investigate,
and then clean the most hazardous sites nationwide.
Superfund has not been renewed since it expired in 1995, leaving
dwindling Federal dollars to clean-up contaminated sites.
This is a big shift from the Clinton administration, when taxes on
chemical and petroleum products provided up to $3.7 billion to clean up
toxic waste sites.
[[Page S13334]]
As a result, the EPA is cleaning up 31 percent fewer Superfund sites,
and taking in 64 percent less in fines per month than it did during its
peak.
There are 96 sites in California that are currently on the Superfund
national priorities list, the second highest number in the Nation
behind New Jersey.
Approximately 40 percent of Californians live within four miles of a
contaminated Superfund site.
One site in particular, the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura
County owned by Rocketdyne, has been at the center of years of
controversy regarding clean-up standards and funding.
A partial meltdown occurred there in 1959, and over the years other
accidents and spills resulted in widespread chemical and radioactive
contamination, which the federal government has been attempting to
clean up.
EPA has played a key role in overseeing the cleanup.
I have been repeatedly promised by EPA that EPA would maintain that
role, that it would ensure that contamination at the facility will be
remediated to EPA's CERCLA, i.e., Superfund, standards, and that EPA
will conduct a thorough radiation survey of the site to those CERCLA,
standards to find the remaining contamination that needs to be cleaned
up.
Recently, there have been indications that the administration may be
pulling back from those commitments. DOE has said it doesn't want the
promised EPA survey to go forward and that it wishes to remove only
5500 cubic meters of radioactively contaminated soil
This plan would leave behind 400,000 cubic meters of soil DOE
concedes are contaminated above EPA's primary cleanup goal, and then
release the site for unrestricted residential use.
Children could end up playing atop the strontium-90 and cesium-137
from a past reactor meltdown if EPA does not stand firm and stick to
the commitments it has made to me.
I take the longstanding promises by EPA seriously, and will be
closely watching to see that a new Administrator lives up to them.
Governor Leavitt has set an encouragingly progressive precedent in his
interactions with the Department of Energy, particularly during his
work to remove uranium mine tailings from the Colorado River at Moab,
Utah. Now we ask the Governor, in his role as Administrator of EPA, to
continue that protective stance.
I applaud Governor Leavitt in his past efforts to ensure that the
Department of Energy behaves in an environmentally responsible manner,
and I urge the Governor to martial all available resources to continue
cleaning Superfund sites.
Among the most serious issues we face as a country is the risk of
terrorism, and among the most worrisome of those threats is that a
radiological dispersal device--a so-called ``dirty bomb''--could be
detonated.
The Homeland Security Agency, with input from a number of other
agencies including EPA, has been attempting to develop cleanup
standards to remediate the radioactive contamination that could result
from such an event.
Some agencies have pushed for cleanup standards far more lax than EPA
historically has viewed as protective of human health and the
environment.
Given the concern many in this Chamber have about EPA's public
pronouncements regarding health risks from the World Trade Center
tragedy, I will be looking to the EPA Administrator to stand firm in
insisting that any cleanup standards established for the aftermath of a
``dirty bomb'' terrorist event be fully protective of human health and
the environment.
These standards should be no less protective than EPA's existing
standards for cleaning up radioactive contamination from non-terrorist
causes such as spills and accidents.
I support the nomination of Governor Mike Leavitt, and look forward
to working with him and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Michael Leavitt to
be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, but I want to
emphasize that I am hoping that Governor Leavitt will bring change to
the sorry record that this administration has had on the environment.
I am concerned by the direction that our Nation's environmental
policy is headed. We need an active Environmental Protection Agency,
working to protect the health of our people. This administration has
been active, all right--actively rolling back the environmental
progress our country has made, actively working to narrow the reach of
Federal environmental policy, actively working to promote oil drilling
in environmentally sensitive areas and actively cutting funding for
conservation and anti-pollution enforcement efforts.
Under this administration, we've seen cuts in funding for the EPA.
We've seen an increased focus on cutting sweetheart deals with
polluters. And we've seen a failure to move forward on new, innovative
programs that will help our environment. While environmental regulation
requires action and distributes responsibility among Federal, State and
local authorities, Governor Leavitt needs to recognize that the Federal
EPA is the backstop. The environmental buck will stop on Governor
Leavitt's desk. If a State is not acting responsibly and protecting the
health and safety of its citizens, Governor Leavitt must step in. I
hope that Governor Leavitt will fight for the environment, rather than
fighting for the priorities of the White House.
I have concerns with this nominee. A number of environmental watchdog
groups have expressed their disappointment about Governor Leavitt's
record on environmental protection during his tenure as Governor of
Utah. He has a record of supporting a number of projects that were
environmentally questionable, such as the Legacy Highway Project in
Davis County, UT. It is my understanding that this highway project as
originally conceived would harm a significant migratory bird habitat.
But in the end, I decided that Governor Leavitt has the background
and qualifications necessary to do this job. As a governor who has a
distinguished background not only leading his own State, but also the
National Governors Association and the Western Governors Association,
he will bring an experienced hand to the leadership of the agency.
Further, as the Vice-Chair of the National Governors Association, he
pushed through a bipartisan policy supporting working out environmental
issues through a collaborative process.
In the area of agriculture, the Administration has delayed the
implementation of the Conservation Security Program, a fresh farmer-
friendly approach to farm policy that uses incentives to help farmers
do what's best for their land and for the air and water they and their
neighbors breathe and drink. This bipartisan, bicameral program was a
key part of the 6 year farm bill passed last year. Yet, it is still not
implemented.
We've also seen a serious pullback from the Clean Water Act. In the
face of the SWANCC decision limiting federal jurisdiction on certain
isolated wetlands, the EPA has released an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and policy guidance that pulls back even further. The intent
of Congress for the CWA is clear--to protect the waters of the United
States, and to reach all waters within Federal constitutional
jurisdiction.
The court's decision in SWANCC has removed jurisdiction from
intrastate, non-navigable waters where jurisdiction was based solely on
the so-called ``migratory bird rule.'' The contemplated changes to the
rules pull back much further and would relinquish jurisdiction that the
Federal Government clearly has and needs to protect waters of the
United States.
One of Governor Leavitt's achievements at the National Governors
Assocation was the adoption of a set of environmental principles he
calls ``enlibra.'' The term means ``balance,'' and refers to a process
of bringing in all the stakeholders in environmental issues together to
try to work issues out. I hope that, as EPA Administrator, Governor
Leavitt will truly strive for balance--because, unfortunately, there
has been very little balance in the environmental policies of the
administration he is joining.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
nomination of Gov. Michael Leavitt to serve as Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
As my colleagues here in the Senate know, I have more than a passing
interest in the people who run our Government. Many of our problems
have
[[Page S13335]]
been caused because we do not have the right people with the right
knowledge and skills in the right place at the right time. The process
is even more difficult when trying to find people to nominate for
controversial appointments like Federal judgeships or high-profile
Cabinet officers.
Well, I would like to say that President Bush got it right. Mike
Leavitt is clearly one of the best people we could ever get to run the
EPA.
I first met Mike while we were both Governors and were active
together in the Republican Governors and National Governors
Associations. Mike served as NGA vice-chairman, under then-Gov. Tom
Carper, NGA chairman, RGA vice-chairman, while I was chairman, and as
RGA chairman.
He has established a very strong reputation as a straight-shooting
consensus builder with the proven ability to work on a bipartisan
basis. On many issues, Mike was willing to take on tough issues--such
as internet taxation and unfunded mandates legislation--and worked with
both Republican and Democratic Governors to form consensus and move the
ball down the field.
During his three terms as Governor, Mike has demonstrated an
outstanding ability to efficiently and effectively manage the State of
Utah's provision of public goods and services. Time after time,
Governor Leavitt has set an agenda in Utah, and each time he has rolled
up his sleeves, pulled together broad coalitions, reached consensus,
and gotten results.
Under Mike's watch, Utah has hosted the most environmentally friendly
Olympics ever, reduced crime, decreased reliance on welfare, reduced
unemployment, and improved education funding and performance--all while
the State's sales, income, and property taxes have been reduced. In
fact, During Mike's tenure as Governor, Utah has been named the best-
managed State five times. No wonder he was recently named ``Public
Official of the Year'' by Governing magazine.
Governor Leavitt's record on the environment is equally as
impressive. Consider: Utah's air quality has demonstrably improved
during the Leavitt administration. Utah currently meets all Federal air
quality standards; this was not the case when Governor Leavitt started
his service. Visibility and air quality in the West have improved
because of Governor Leavitt's co-chairmanship of the Western Regional
Air Partnership. Utah has among the Nation's cleanest watersheds and
water quality has improved dramatically during the Leavitt
administration. Governor Leavitt helped protect 500,000 acres of
remarkable land in national parks, monuments, recreation areas and
wilderness study areas through value-for-value land exchanges with the
Federal Government. Utah's Quality Growth Commission, which Governor
Leavitt helped establish, has conserved approximately 35,000 acres of
critical land in perpetuity, protecting critical wildlife, watershed
and historical and agricultural assets in the State. Governor Leavitt
helped found Envision Utah, the Nation's largest voluntary quality
growth partnership. It was formed to create a vision and implement
strategies to protect Utah's environment for future generations.
I cannot think of anyone who is better suited to lead the EPA.
Governor Leavitt has continuously demonstrated the tremendous
interpersonal skills and management experience necessary to handle the
major challenges that the Agency faces during the months and years
ahead. He cares deeply about the environment and will pull people
together to get things done.
Mike's proven ability to facilitate the creation of positive
solutions to multiple problems and interests is exactly what is needed
at the EPA's top post. He has established an impressive track record of
producing results; one that I believe will continue should he be
confirmed as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I strongly urge all my colleagues here in the Senate to support
Mike's nomination.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to support President
Bush's nomination of Governor Michael O. Leavitt to be the next
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I am proud to
have the opportunity to make a statement for the record that expresses
my endorsement of this qualified nominee. President Bush has chosen an
individual who understands the importance of a clean and healthy
environment and who will ensure that the regulations promulgated by the
EPA will be based on sound science, not speculation and conjecture. All
too often, these regulations are put into effect not because they will
increase health benefits, but because it was the politically expedient
thing to do.
Governor Leavitt's record speaks for itself. I think that there is
little doubt, on either side of the aisle that Governor Leavitt is
extremely qualified to serve as the next administrator of the EPA. He
has thrice been elected as Governor of Utah and is currently the
longest serving Governor of any State in the Nation. Under this watch,
Utah saw a reduction in crime, hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics, and cut
taxes. It comes as no surprise that five times during Governor
Leavitt's 11 years as Governor, Utah has been voted the best managed
State five times. As Governor, he has demonstrated his fitness to serve
as our Nation's top environmental official by solving problems through
consensus building and cooperation. Governor Leavitt has demonstrated
his ability to bring all affected parties to the table, roll up his
sleeves and reach a solution. These skills will be of critical
importance as the 2006 arsenic regulations approach and we work toward
domestic energy security.
Of great concern to the people of my State and the State of Utah is
the implementation of the EPA's 2006 arsenic drinking water standard
which lowers the maximum allowable parts per billion of arsenic from 50
to 10. Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in my home State of New
Mexico and in the State of Utah. Compliance with this regulation comes
at a great cost to small communities, those that least have the
resources to achieve implementation. The estimated national cost of
implementing this new EPA rule is $600 million annually and will
require $5 billion in capital outlays.
The EPA estimates that roughly 97 percent of the systems expected to
exceed the standard are small systems, those serving fewer than 10,000
people. These small communities lack the economies of scale present in
larger communities and are less able to spread out costs. In Governor
Leavitt's home State for example, the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality estimates that implementing the new standards will require $40
million in capital outlays and predicts that annual operation and
maintenance costs will run into the tens of millions of dollars. We
need an administrator that will work with these communities so that
implementation of this standard can be accomplished as smoothly and
painlessly as possible.
There is no doubt that our Nation is facing an energy crisis. The
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I serve as chairman,
has spent many months and many people have put in long hours developing
a comprehensive energy policy that best meets our Nation's energy needs
while safeguarding the environment. I have come to the realization that
every department of our Government needs to start looking not only at
their policies but how their policies affect America's energy future.
As we move forward with America's energy policy, it is critical that we
have an EPA Administrator who understands our country's energy needs
and is able to make assessments that are both based on empirical proof
and will protect our invaluable natural resources for future
generations. We need an Administrator who will evaluate how our
environmental policies affect the goal of energy self-sufficiency. We
need an Administrator that will promote scientifically valid
initiatives when making assessments on the impact of regulations the
EPA promulgates. I have no reservation that Governor Leavitt is the man
for the job.
Accomplishing these national priorities will be no easy task. I hope
that he has a very successful term because if he does, we will be a
more secure Nation for it. I bid him well.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I supported Governor Levitt's nomination
in the Environment Committee, but that does not mean that I support the
Bush administration's environmental polices. Far from it. Under the
Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency has ignored
[[Page S13336]]
the law and gutted its enforcement. It has been a 30-month polluters'
holiday.
I think the record is clear. There is also an enormous gap between
the bipartisan approach that Mike Levitt supported in dealing with
environmental issues while he has served as Governor of Utah, and this
administration. For example, the bipartisan Western Governors' policy
states ``Westerners do not reject the goals and objectives of federal
environmental laws, nor the appropriate role of federal regulation and
enforcement.'' Recently, the EPA Office of Enforcement found that
during the past 2 years, only 24 percent of the facilities that were in
major noncompliance with respect to the Clean Water Act faced
enforcement actions. So the EPA's own enforcement office says on major
water violations, there hasn't been enforcement.
Gap number two, the Western Governors Association has always stressed
consultation with all the parties and involving the States. Two
examples where the administration isn't doing that are on the question
of these closed door negotiations with industrial livestock firms,
behind closed doors they are talking about amnesty from the Clean Air
Act and the Superfund law. Another is the lack of consultation with the
States on the proposed rule to limit the scope of the Clean Air Act.
Thirty-nine States have objected and said they were not party to that
discussion. So on the question of consultation involving States, there
is a big gap between the Western Governors and this administration.
The third big gap can be seen in the Western Governors Association
positions on the environment where there is a clear commitment to
following the law. Certainly that hasn't been done with the Bush
administration when it comes to the Clean Air Act. I was on the
conference committee that wrote the law in 1990, and I can tell you
there was absolutely no question that it was the intent of Congress
that powerplants, oil refineries and industrial facilities would be
required to install pollution controls. This is a blatant example of
the Bush administration's failure to follow the law.
What I am interested in is seeing an effort to go back to the kinds
of policies that the Governors, particularly those in the West, have
sought to try to bring people together on these contentious issues and
find common ground. That has not been what the Environmental Protection
Agency has done in Washington, D.C. But that is what is needed.
When Governor Leavitt came before the Environment and Public Works
Committee, I was particularly concerned about his willingness to use
the enforcement tools of the agency against serious and egregious
violations of the environmental laws. My sense is that the
collaborative model that he wishes to pursue is one I support. But it
is clear, Mr. President and colleagues, that when companies abuse that
kind of good-faith effort by government, the government has got to be
willing to come down with hobnail boots on those who are putting at
risk our air and our land and water. Prior to the committee vote,
Governor Leavitt sent me a memo making it clear that he is willing to
look at a different enforcement approach than this administration has
used in the past. In the memo, Governor Leavitt wrote ``in warranted
circumstances I would use the enforcement power rigorously.'' By
contrast, during the Bush administration, enforcement has been
essentially abandoned, and even the EPA's own internal reports indicate
that that is the case.
The American people need an administrator who is going to end this
polluters' holiday and put the Environmental Protection Agency back to
work protecting the environment. I think that the Governor's ideas
about collaboration are important. They are fresh and creative, and I
think that if he is willing to do as he pledged to work with members of
Congress on both sides of the aisle, that they could revitalize the
agency and bring a fresh approach to environmental policy. But it is
important for senators to understand that those who talk about
collaboration only, without a willingness to back it up with tough
enforcement policies, could be talking about just window dressing for
business, or really lack of business as usual.
Over the past several weeks, Governor Leavitt has worked hard to
convince me he means business. He has reached out and made the extra
effort to show he will be no just an advocate for collaboration but
also a tough, no-nonsense enforcer when he needs to be. He has also
committed to look at the situation involving the City of Portland's
sewer overflows during wet weather and whether this is an appropriate
case for enforcement, given that the local community is making progress
in addressing the situation and that local ratepayers have already
spent more than $500 million toward what will eventually be a $1
billion project.
So the Governor, in my view, has made clear that he wants to bring to
EPA a fresh and independent approach to these kinds of issues. He has
convinced me that he understands that tough no-nonsense enforcement of
this country's environmental laws is absolutely essential when the
environmental collaborative approach does not work. I will be closely
watching how Governor Leavitt follows through on these changes in EPA's
approach to enforcement.
It is very obvious to me that there needs to be a dramatic set of
changes put in place at the Environmental Protection Agency. My vote
today is essentially a vote because I think the Governor of Utah has
the potential to do this job right. I am supporting the Mike Leavitt
who I know can be a tough, independent administrator of EPA. For all
Americans' sake, I hope Governor Leavitt will be successful in bringing
about this change in EPA's direction. I want to give him a chance to
succeed, and that is why I am supporting his nomination today.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the Senate's responsibility to
scrutinize and confirm Presidential nominees is an important one, and
never more so than when we are considering who should oversee the
agency that, as its name indicates, is designed to protect the
country's environment.
The individual charged with this responsibility will advise the
President on setting the direction for our national efforts to protect
the environment. This person will have the power to decide whether to
nurture and conserve, or to develop and destroy our Nation's great
resources. Throughout my career, I have committed myself to a career of
environmental stewardship. I have tried to cast votes and offer
legislation that fully reflect and respond to the importance and
lasting legacy of America's environmental needs. I thus take this vote
very seriously.
At the same time, I also have another tradition to defend and uphold.
I have committed myself to playing a constructive role with respect to
the Senate's duty to provide advice and consent on the President's
nominees for Cabinet or other senior executive branch positions. I take
that role seriously as well.
As the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Mike
Leavitt would be charged with unique and historic responsibilities,
which will be as important as they are far reaching. In varying ways,
all Americans will be affected by his decisions. As the Nation's
principal environmental agency, the EPA has responsibility for the
protection of air and water resources, for the clean up of toxic
wastes, and for the regulation of the quality of our environment.
That is why I am sensitive to the concerns of some that Governor
Leavitt will not live up to this responsibility for environmental
stewardship if his nomination is confirmed. I have been at odds with
some of Governor Leavitt's environmental management decisions, and I am
concerned that his background might cloud his judgement and objectivity
on a number of important issues and place him at odds with members of
the conservation community and with this Senator.
While I am concerned with Mr. Leavitt's professed unfamiliarity with
many of the laws that I regard as critical for the promotion of a
balanced environmental policy, I am somewhat heartened by his comments
that he will give this position ``the full measure of his heart.'' I am
encouraged by this commitment to listen to the views of all
stakeholders and all points of view and make, in his words,
environmental protection a national ``ethic.''
I will take Mr. Leavitt at his word--that he will devote his time and
energy
[[Page S13337]]
to the proper enforcement of the EPA's policies, rather than
circumventing or repealing laws which preserve our dwindling resources,
that he will attempt to address the pollution that makes our air unfit
to breathe and our water unsafe to drink, and that he will protect our
land and water resources. I intend to hold him to his word.
I also will act in accordance with what I feel is the proper
constitutional role of the Senate when it comes to confirming
Presidential nominees for positions advising the President. I believe
that the Senate should allow a President to appoint people to advise
him who share his philosophy and principles. My approach to judicial
nominations, of course, is different--nominees for lifetime positions
in the judicial branch warrant particularly close scrutiny.
For these reasons, I will support Governor Leavitt's nomination
today. However, in doing so, I fully recognize that I have an ongoing
responsibility to oversee the institution with stewardship of our
environmental quality to ensure that it lives up to its duties. The
Senate does not, by confirming Mr. Leavitt, discharge its
responsibility to protect our resources and ensure that our
environmental laws are enforced. I feel a responsibility to listen to
the voices of the many Wisconsinites and others who are deeply
concerned about this administration's environmental record. I am
hopeful that these voices will be heard by Mr. Leavitt and I will be
vigilant in ensuring that Governor Leavitt takes his responsibilities
with the utmost seriousness.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I join with those of my colleagues
who are pleased to see that the nomination of Governor Michael Leavitt
to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency will finally
be moving forward.
Governor Leavitt is one of the founders of a bipartisan and
collaborative approach to environmental decisionmaking that is a model
for dealing with the difficult issues that face us today. His ``En
Libra'' philosophy has been adopted by the National Governors
Association and is being used by Federal, State, local and private
entities throughout the country. He is the former chair of the National
Governors Association, the Western Governors Association, the
Republican Governors Association and the Council of State Governments.
His experience spans the private sector, academia, and government.
Governor Leavitt is without question qualified for the job. In fact,
he is superbly qualified for the job. He is the Nation's longest-
serving, and arguably most successful Governor, whose tenure has
brought unprecedented prosperity to his State, unparalleled efficiency
to its management, and unequaled improvements to its environment. Along
the way he has strived for and achieved--if not perfect harmony--then a
notable reduction in the volume and intensity of debate over the kind
of issues that are more often polarizing than they are unifying.
There can be no better recommendation for the individual who is to
lead the agency charged with stewardship of our country's environment.
Unfortunately, Governor Leavitt's nomination was treated shamefully
by a small handful of individuals bent on using it as an excuse to
accuse the current administration of all kinds of environmental wrongs,
to perpetuate outmoded and ineffectual approaches to environmental
issues, and to cater to the worst kind of unscientific and
unsupportable rhetoric--all that Governor Leavitt stands against and
that this Senate should repudiate for the sake of our nation's welfare.
My State of Alaska, as many others--especially in the west--has often
struggled with environmental restrictions sought by, imposed by, and
maintained by interests with very little knowledge of the conditions we
live with. Nonetheless, we take our environmental responsibilities very
seriously.
We care about our environment, and we try very hard to address
serious issues with clarity and common sense. All too often, common
sense is lacking when one-size-fits-all solutions are imposed from
outside, and based more on fanciful gloom-and-doom predictions than on
facts.
The truth is that we have made mammoth strides in improving our
environment, and every day we learn new ways to apply research and
technology toward doing an even better job.
This administration is providing a breath of fresh air--and I mean
that both literally and figuratively--when it comes to environmental
issues.
While improvements can certainly be forced--at great cost--by the
threat of heavy-handed government enforcement, they come far more
rapidly when they are to the participants' economic advantage. There is
all the difference in the world between making money and not losing
money.
If we look honestly at what works and what doesn't, we have to
conclude that reform of the regulatory process is badly needed.
Frankly, I commend the administration for being willing to look at new
approaches to building a better environment, rather than continuing to
hammer at the same old nails.
I am confident that I will not always agree with the positions that
Governor Leavitt may take if he becomes the EPA Administrator. Alaska
has a number of outstanding issues with the EPA.
We have long hoped to establish Alaska as a separate EPA region,
because attempting to administer such a vast area with so few people
who have even seen the issues first-hand is an impossible task that
often leads to unnecessary and damaging misunderstandings.
We would like to move forward on a determination that better defines
the extent of Clean Water Act authority over Alaska's wetlands. We have
over 174 million acres of land classified as wetlands, more than all
the other States combined. Much of it is neither use for navigation nor
connected in any substantive way with other water bodies, or exists
solely because it is underlain by permafrost.
We would like to receive active assistance from the EPA in evaluating
the long-term health benefits of our reliance on small, diesel-powered
utilities.
We would like to receive recognition that uncontrollable temperature
inversions due to our climate are the primary reason some of our cities
have difficulty attaining compliance with carbon monoxide rules.
We would like the agency to work with us on developing a mechanism
that will more effectively deliver grants to Alaska's many rural Native
communities.
In fact, the list of issues between us ranges from minuscule to
mammoth--from local issues that should be easily resolved to those
which require the intervention of the Supreme Court.
I by no means believe that confirming Governor Michael Leavitt will
lead to a resolution of them all. What I do believe is that Governor
Leavitt will offer comprehensive, impartial and thoughtful
consideration. That is all I ask, and all that my constituents ask.
I strongly support this nomination, and I am very pleased to see that
it is moving at this time. I would like to think that this marks a
triumph for the American people, who have little patience for
diversionary rhetoric and divisionary politics. The American people
want their Congress to simply do its job, to the best of its ability,
and with the welfare of the entire country in mind.
I will vote to confirm Governor Leavitt on behalf of my constituents,
on behalf of all Americans, and on behalf of a safe, productive and
healthy environment. I urge all my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, yesterday on the Senate
floor, I voiced my concerns about the Bush administration's weak
environmental record and the need to further debate those concerns. I
also shared my belief that Governor Leavitt is an able public servant
who will likely be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In follow up to those remarks and following the vitiation of the
cloture vote, I spoke with Governor Leavitt and explained my views on
the direction of environmental policy under this President and the need
for him to emerge as champion for the environment in an administration
that lacks one. I informed him that, having made my objections known, I
would vote in favor of his nomination in the hopes that we could forge
a strong working relationship to reach suitable resolutions to the many
environmental problems, including Superfund issues, that plague my
State of Florida and the Nation.
[[Page S13338]]
Mr. INHOFE. And with that I ask the minority, do they have anyone
else who wants the time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. INHOFE. I yield at this time the final 10 minutes to the Senator
from Utah, Mr. Hatch.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague for reserving his
time for me. I also want to pay tribute to the distinguished Senator
from Vermont and the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma for their
leadership on this matter, for their goodness and kindness in support.
I have to say with these two fine Senators we have in the Senate, both
of them supporting this nominee speaks volumes of the fine man he is.
But I have also heard from a couple of my colleagues whom I respect
that they have ``serious concerns.'' Governor Leavitt has had a
``careless disregard for water and air,'' ``a disturbing tendency to
ignore regulations,'' ``a hands off approach.'' He is a ``rollback
administrator.''
As I understand it, those statements were made this morning. The
distinguished Senator from Illinois said that Governor Leavitt has
``turned his back on the wilderness.'' He also said that ``Utah is one
of the biggest polluter States in the Nation.''
I cannot blame him too much for making that statement because he is
just quoting some of the irresponsible people in the environmental
field who basically have totally ignored the facts, which I am going to
speak about in a minute.
I am grateful to these two leaders for the kind way they have handled
this nomination and for the effective way they have handled it so we
will have a final vote on one of the finest Governors in this land to
head one of the most difficult agencies in this land. He is a Governor
who is known for working with everybody, known for keeping an open
mind, known for being honest, known for being active, and known for
intelligence. I could go on about Mike Leavitt. He is a very fine man.
Yesterday during the debate on the nomination of Gov. Michael Leavitt
to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, my friend
and colleague Senator Richard Durbin from Illinois stood up on the
Senate floor and began an attack on the State of Utah and on Utah's
Governor. Now this morning, I find that another friend and colleague,
Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, has been following suit. I am
certain both of them are sincere, but I am going to show that both of
them are absolutely wrong as well.
First, I am very disappointed that my colleagues would spend time
highlighting the supposed weakness of another Senator's State and the
supposed weakness of that State's top elected official, especially when
they are wrong in both instances.
It was very appropriate for the Members of the Senate in the
Environment and Public Works Committee to ask the Governor questions
orally and in writing about his management of Utah's natural resources
and to allow him to provide answers to those questions, but to ignore
his answers to those questions and to use the Senate floor to cast
aspersions at Utah I find personally offensive.
Secondly, to be frank, I have to say I am especially offended that my
colleagues choose this forum to make these attacks with information
that is so clearly inaccurate and so cleverly twisted to cast Utah and
its Governor in the worst possible light, so I find it necessary to
make part of the Record the truth about some of the aspersions cast at
my State.
Utah is one of the cleanest States in the Nation, and in large part
this is due to Gov. Michael Leavitt, so one can imagine my surprise
when one of my colleagues comes to the Senate floor to call Utah one of
the Nation's biggest polluters and to blame our Governor for it. What
does my colleague mean when he calls Utah a big polluter? A more
important question is, What does the public think it means when they
hear my colleagues say it?
Let me shed some light on where others have sown confusion. One of
the principal indexes being looked at by my colleagues is the Toxic
Release Inventory, or TRI, which is collected and published by the EPA.
The most recent TRI report came out in 2001, but we should keep in mind
that the data for that report, or for the TRI, are 2 years old.
In other words, the 2001 TRI report makes use of data from 1999.
A very careful distinction must be made before using numbers from the
TRI report. Some may believe or wish to cause others to believe that
the TRI simply counts up how much pollution goes into our water and our
air, but this is not necessarily the case, to say the least. In fact,
every time a company uses a chemical and then correctly and legally
disposes of it, that is considered a release.
Even if a pound of a certain chemical is properly recycled, that,
too, is considered a pound of release. When a mining company takes a
pound of dirt and rock and removes metals from it, that leftover soil
and rock often contains chemicals from the processing and must be
handled according to a very strict environmental set of regulations.
However, each pound of that soil and rock is counted as a release under
the TRI.
States such as Utah and Nevada have very large mining operations, and
because the amount of leftover rock and soil from these operations is
very large, these two States show up at the top of the list when all
types of releases are combined.
So do TRI numbers really reflect pollution that is going into our air
and water? Yes, in some cases. But as I just pointed out, many of the
``releases'' reported under TRI never go into our air or our water but
are safely sequestered according to the law.
I quote from the EPA's TRI report itself, 2001 TRI public data
release, ES-26:
TRI reports reflect releases and other waste management
activities of chemicals, not exposures of the public to those
chemicals. Release estimates alone are not sufficient to
determine exposure or to calculate potential adverse effects
on human health and the environment.
Most citizens will be more concerned about chemicals actually emitted
into the air and discharged into our surface water than they will about
leftover rock and soil from mining activities that are legally
sequestered. According to the 2001 TRI report, Utah emitted about 19
million pounds of chemicals into the air during 1999, but the same
report shows that the State of Illinois released nearly 60 million
pounds of chemicals into the air. In other words, according to the TRI,
during 1999 Illinois was three times the air polluter that Utah was. I
point out that since then, Utah's biggest air polluter, MagCorp, has
voluntarily upgraded its facilities and reduced its emissions by more
than 90 percent. This is all under Governor Leavitt's management.
Let's look at surface water discharges. During that same year, Utah
released 1.2 million pounds of chemicals into the surface water. This
was below the average of all States. However, the TRI report shows that
New Jersey released 3.7 million pounds and Illinois released 8 million
pounds of chemicals into the surface water. In other words, according
to the EPA, New Jersey is three times the water polluter that Utah is
and Illinois almost eight times the polluter that Utah is.
So what does this mean? Does it mean that Illinois and New Jersey
should be labeled as large polluters or, as my State was erroneously
labeled, the biggest polluters in the country? No, of course not, and I
certainly do not believe that to be the case. I believe they are both
beautiful and well run States, just as I know Utah to be.
I think it does mean, though, that the Senators from these two States
should be more careful about attempting to pin the ``polluter'' label
on my State and on my Governor, and I am not going to stand for it.
That is why I am making these remarks today, among other reasons.
Frankly, I am going to stand up for this very fine Governor and good
person who is known to be a person who works with people of all beliefs
and from all parties.
Some of my colleagues and many in the environmental community have
been a little too fast and too loose with pinning that unhelpful label
of ``polluter'' on others and on the industries that keep our society
running.
I have also heard on the Senate floor that Utah has one of the worst
records for water quality enforcement in the Nation. This is patently
false. There was a report put out by the environmental group that
states this falsehood. However, the statement was
[[Page S13339]]
based on incomplete reporting on water quality data from Utah.
In an analysis of the complete data, the EPA has in fact determined
that Utah ranks among the top 10 States in water quality compliance--
one of the top 10 States--and yet we have to put up with this type of
unfortunate mischaracterization of my State.
Admittedly, some of my colleagues pay much too much attention to some
of these people who are in this game for politics rather than for doing
what is right for the environment. I might as well point out that Utah
is also in complete compliance with EPA's air quality standards. This
is rare amongst States, and it was not the case when Governor Leavitt
took office.
I have also heard that Governor Leavitt has turned his back on
wilderness in Utah and he supports bulldozing new roads through our
national parks. Both statements are false as well, and rather than
launch into a long debate about wilderness and BLM roads, I ask
unanimous consent that the memorandum of understanding between the
State of Utah and the Department of the Interior on State and county
road acknowledgment be printed in the Record immediately following my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HATCH. Anyone who reads this document will see that the
understanding does nothing to allow new roads or even the upgrade of
existing roads.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. They will also see that the understanding specifically
excludes roads in our parks, refuges, wilderness areas, and even in our
wilderness study areas. More important, these issues have nothing
whatever to do with the Environmental Protection Agency, and that needs
to be pointed out.
Finally, I reiterate my love for my beautiful State of Utah and for
my good friend Michael Leavitt. In my statement yesterday, I showed
that the record is clear that Michael Leavitt is a champion of the
environment and that he is widely recognized as one of our Nation's top
public managers. I urge my colleagues to put their full support behind
his nomination to head up the Environmental Protection Agency and I do
not believe they will be sorry. I believe my colleagues will find him
to be the great leader that we all know him to be.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between the State of Utah and The
Department of the Interior on State and County Road Acknowledgment
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into
between the U.S. Department of the Interior and the State of
Utah on this 9th day of April 2003.
Whereas,
1. In a Report to Congress prepared in June of 1993, the
Department of the Interior explained that unresolved
conflicts over the status of rights-of-way created pursuant
to Revised Statute 2477 were creating a continuing cloud on
federal agencies' ability to manage federal lands.
2. On August 7, 2002, a bipartisan group of eight western
governors wrote urging the Department of the Interior to
bring finality to R.S. 2477 disputes in a cooperative manner.
3. On July 16, 2002, the National Association of Counties
adopted a resolution urging the Department of the Interior to
adopt a policy approach to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way that would
allow counties to maintain historical rights of way across
federally managed lands.
4. Disputes involving R.S. 2477 rights-of-way have
generated numerous expensive and inconclusive federal court
lawsuits that have left numerous questions concerning the
ownership status of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way unresolved; and
the high cost of this litigation has made it difficult for
states and counties to assert their rights and for
conservation groups to assert their interests.
5. The Department of the Interior has traditionally
approached R.S. 2477 issues by trying to define the precise
legal limits of the original statutory grant.
6. Most of the asserted R.S. 2477 rights-of-way that
actually have been part of western states-inventoried and
maintained transportation infrastructure since before the
enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) in 1976 satisfy the statutory requirements of
``construction'' and ``highway'' under almost any
interpretation of those statutory terms.
7. The State of Utah has many R.S. 2477 claims, and on June
14, 2000, sent to the Secretary of the Interior a Notice of
Intention to File Suit under 28 U.S.C.\1\ 2409a(m) to quit
the title to those claims.
8. The roads in which the State of Utah and Utah counties
assert claims include many roads of continuing importance to
rural transportation.
9. Rights-of-way granted under R.S. 2477 are vested
property rights that cannot be eliminated or diminished
without due process. However, the statutory grant of the
rights-of-way did not require the issuance of an identifying
record, such as a patent. The resulting uncertainty
surrounding the identity and scope of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way
has created unnecessary difficulties in federal, state and
local transportation and land use planning decisions.
10. The State of Utah and Utah counties have spent
considerable time and substantial resources to gather
information about road claims and are prepared, if necessary,
to litigate those claims.
11. Federal, state and local managers and environmental
advocacy organizations have all demonstrated a desire to put
disputes surrounding R.S. 2477 to rest and move toward an
approach to land management that emphasizes cooperation.
Now, therefore, the parties stipulate and agree as follows:
1. The Department shall implement a State and County Road
Acknowledgment Process (Acknowledgment Process) to
acknowledge the existence of certain R.S. 2477 rights-of-way
on Bureau of Land Management land within the State of Utah,
as further described in, and subject to the terms and
conditions of, this MOU.
2. For purposes of the Acknowledgment Process only, neither
the State nor any Utah county shall assert a right-of-way for
any:
a. roads that lie within Congressionally designated
Wilderness Areas or Wilderness Study Areas designated on or
before October 21, 1993, under Section 603 of FLPMA; and
b. roads that lie within the boundaries of any unit of the
National Park System; and
c. roads that lie within the boundaries of any unit of the
National Wildlife Refuge System; and
d. roads that are administered by a federal agency other
than the Department of the Interior, unless that federal
agency consents to the inclusion of the road in the
Acknowledgment Process.
3. The State of Utah, or any Utah county, shall submit a
request to initiate the Acknowledgment Process for a
candidate road and shall reimburse the Bureau of Land
Management for the reasonable and necessary cost of
processing each request. Each eligible road submitted shall
have the following characteristics:
a. the road existed prior to the enactment of FLPMA in 1976
and is in use at the present time;
b. the road can be identified by centerline description or
other appropriate legal description;
c. the existence of the road prior to the enactment of
FLPMA is documented by information sufficient to support a
conclusion that the road meets the legal requirements of a
right-of-way granted under R.S. 2477; this information may
include, but is not limited to, photographs, affidavits,
surveys, government records concerning the road, information
concerning or information reasonably inferred from the road's
current conditions; and
d. the road was and continues to be public and capable of
accommodating automobiles or trucks with four wheels and has
been the subject of some type of periodic maintenance.
4. The Acknowledgment Process referenced in this MOU that
the Department shall use to acknowledge eligible roads is
FLPMA's recordable disclaimer of interest process.
See 43 U.S.C. 1745; 43 C.F.R. subpart 1864. The recordable
disclaimer of interest process provides a clear statutory
basis for resolving claims and provides an opportunity for
public notice and participation. The Utah State Director of
the Bureau of Land Management will issue a recordable
disclaimer of interest if the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations, and the terms of this MOU, have
been satisfied.
5. By signing this agreement, the Department recognizes
that road width and ongoing maintenance levels are essential
aspects of road management. Therefore, the scope of a road
that the Department disclaims should include a sufficient
width to allow the State or county to maintain the character,
usage, and travel safety of the road existing at the date of
this MOU. For purposes of the Acknowledgment Process only,
the width of the road asserted and the width of the road
disclaimed shall not exceed the width of ground disturbance
that currently exists for the road at the date of this MOU.
6. After the Department issues a recordable disclaimer of
interest for an acknowledged road, the State or a county may
want to increase the road's width beyond the already
disclaimed right-of-way, or to improve the road in a way that
substantially alters its character (such as by paving a
previously unpaved surface). But the recordable disclaimer of
interest process will not be used as a mechanism to
substantially alter the characteristics of a road. In cases
where the State or a county wishes to substantially alter a
road that is subject to the Acknowledgement Process in a way
that is outside the scope of ordinary maintenance, it will do
so only after notifying BLM of its intentions and giving BLM
an opportunity to determine that no permit or other
authorization is required under federal law; or, if a permit
or
[[Page S13340]]
other authorization is required, securing such a permit or
other authorization, issued in compliance with any applicable
law, including requirements of Title V of FLPMA and the
National Environmental Policy Act. In the event a permit is
deemed necessary, the Department will make its best effort to
process requests for access under Title V of FLPMA promptly
and cooperatively.
7. In order to facilitate the Acknowledgment Process in
Utah, the Department hereby declares that the requirements
for determinations under the ``Interim Departmental Policy on
Revised Statute 2477 Grant of Right-of-Way for Public
Highways; Revocation of December 7, 1988 Policy,'' dated
January 22, 1997, shall be inapplicable to acknowledgment
requests submitted in accordance with this MOU. While the
1997 Interim Policy shall still apply to all other requests
for right-of-way acknowledgment that are not submitted
pursuant to this MOU, the Department recognizes that other
interested states and counties may wish to submit proposed
MOU's for consideration by the Department that are generally
consistent with the principles set out in this agreement.
8. The State, Utah counties and the Department shall work
cooperatively to minimize trespass situations on roads that
are outside the scope of this MOU.
9. It is understood that the State and counties have
evidence regarding the existence of many roads, including
those in which they assert no ownership interest. They may
choose to use this evidence for other purposes, such as to
illustrate whether the land through which the roads run have
wilderness-like characteristics or resource values. The
Acknowledgment Process will take place independently and
without prejudice to any other use of this evidence or other
valid existing rights, if any.
10. After submitting a road to the Acknowledgment Process,
the State or a county may withdraw it from consideration at
any time prior to the actual recording of the disclaimer
issued by the Department, for any reason, without prejudice.
The submission of a road to the Acknowledgment Process does
not prejudice the State's or a county's valid existing rights
regarding that road under the law.
11. The Department shall execute any implementing
agreements with the State of Utah or Economy Act agreements
as appropriate with other federal agencies, as required by
applicable statutes and regulations, when effectuating the
purposes of this MOU.
12. Activities under this MOU and any implementing
agreements shall be conducted in accordance with mutually-
agreed upon plans for the classification of information by
the State, for the review and release of information, and for
cooperation in the preparation of any and all reports to
Congress. The release of any information by the Department
under this MOU will be in accordance with applicable statutes
and regulations.
13. Any expenditure of appropriated funds by the Department
will be developed in specific agreements authorized by
applicable statutes and regulations and is subject to the
availability of funds. This MOU shall not be used to obligate
or commit funds or as the basis for the transfer of funds.
14. This MOU shall not be construed as creating any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or
in equity, by a party against the State of Utah, Utah
counties, the United States, it agencies, its officers, or
any other person. This MOU shall not be construed to create
any right to judicial review involving the compliance or
noncompliance of the State of Utah, Utah counties, the United
States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person with
the provisions of this MOU.
Signed 4-9-03
Gale A. Norton
Secretary
United States Department of the Interior.
Signed 4-9-03
Michael O. Leavitt
Governor
State of Utah.
\1\ For purposes of this MOU, the terms ``road'' and
``highway'' shall be deemed synonymous.
Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator from Utah yield briefly?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah be
given 1 additional minute and he yield it to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am less familiar with Governor Leavitt's
environmental record in Utah than is our colleague Senator Hatch. I
have known him for more than a decade. We became Governors together in
the same year. We were elected in 1992. We know him. We know his
family.
I know him to be a thoughtful, decent, caring human being. He is a
good manager and a good leader of his State. He has also been a great
leader of our Nation's Governors.
I was privileged to serve as Chair of the National Association of
Governors at the time he was Vice Chair. He succeeded me as Chair. He
is very bright and surrounds himself with excellent people. But what I
like best is he is very good at bringing together people with diverse
points of view, trying to build consensus. We need that in a lot of
areas in our Nation's Capitol these days, and we especially need it
with respect to environmental issues. I look forward to voting for his
nomination and working with him if he is confirmed.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Delaware. His comments speak
volumes as to why we should support Governor Leavitt. I am particularly
pleased and grateful for his support in this matter, as I am for the
support of the two leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous
order, the Senate will proceed to a vote on confirmation of the
nomination. The question is, Shall the Senate advise and consent to the
nomination of Michael O. Leavitt to be Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman),
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 412 Ex.]
YEAS--88
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--8
Boxer
Corzine
Dayton
Durbin
Lautenberg
Reed
Rockefeller
Schumer
NOT VOTING--4
Bingaman
Edwards
Kerry
Lieberman
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President shall
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________