[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.

                          ____________________