Nomination of Michael O. Leavitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

NOMINATION OF MICHAEL O. LEAVITT TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor with a genuine concern about this appointment by the Bush administration. When President Bush first appointed Gov. Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey as the head of the EPA, many of us breathed a sigh of relief, realizing that she had an extraordinarily good record as Governor of New Jersey when it came to environmental issues, understanding that when she came to Washington, she would be up against some massive special interest forces who, frankly, believe that environmental law is too strong, wrong, and that the special interests should have a lot more say in the decisionmaking.

I voted for Christine Todd Whitman because I had hope she would bring balance to an administration that might be pushed too far toward the special interest groups. On many occasions, she lived up to that aspiration and hope on my part. I met with her several times, discussed important issues, publicly and privately. I was encouraged by the things she said.

But it became apparent after a while that, despite her strong credentials on the environment, they were no match to the force of special interests when it came to the Bush administration on environmental policy. Time and again, the EPA came down on the wrong side when it came to protecting the environment. The list is extremely long. I will not go through all of it in detail. But this was the first President—President Bush—to oppose polluter fees to pay for cleaning up toxic waste sites since Superfund became law. In Illinois and across America, Superfund waste sites are there still, today, creating toxic emergencies and public health hazards across America because President Bush doesn't want the polluting industry to pay to clean them up. That is a fact. That happened in the EPA with Christine Todd Whitman. It could have been one of the reasons she left.

This President slashed the EPA enforcement staff by over 100 employees. So there will be fewer men and women keeping an eye on toxic polluters in America. The administration also entered into arrangements crafting an energy plan rich with subsidies for the oil and gas industry and devoid of any fuel efficiency standards for America's cars and trucks. A recent GAO report found that President Bush's OMB is changing environmental regulations, often without disclosing these actions to the public.

The President has refused to act on global warming despite recent reports that ice levels in many parts of the world are low, threatening the polar bear and other species with extinction.

Now we have the successor of Christine Todd Whitman presented, Michael Leavitt of Utah. I have never met him, so I cannot say I have any personal knowledge of who he is or what he stands for. I can only look at his record as Governor of Utah. The record is not encouraging. In fact, with his administration, Utah recently tied for last place in Clean Water Act enforcement and ranked first in the Nation for toxic waste release. Imagine, the nominee for the EPA's top post is coming from a State that ranked No. 1 in the Nation for toxic waste release, and a State that tied for last place in the Clean Water Act enforcement. What does that tell you about his conscience and his concern when it comes to the environment? It doesn't give me a good feeling and hope that he will have any of the strength that Christine Todd Whitman had to stand up against the polluters and against the special interest groups and stand up for the environment in America.

That is a sad commentary on this nominee to this critically important position. At this point, many colleagues on the committee and others in the Senate have raised important questions, and many answers have not been given as to why the decision was made by the Republican leadership to move this through. Some say that timing has to do with a lawsuit on file in Utah. I have no idea why we have to do this today. That, frankly, is a decision made by the Republican leadership.

I will tell you that I think it is a sad commentary that a Republican Party, with distinguished and rich history leaders such as Teddy Roosevelt, who had the foresight to provide Federal protection to almost 230 million acres of land, is considering the appointment of a Governor of Utah to the EPA who has turned his back on the preservation of wilderness areas in his own home State. But that is a fact. That is a matter of record.

I urge my colleagues to consider this very carefully. If you believe the Bush administration's policy on environmental protection is a good one, vote yes for Governor Leavitt. If you believe they have moved forward in making America safer when it comes to clean water and less toxic ways, vote for Governor Leavitt. But if you believe, as I do, that this policy and this approach have been wrong—and, frankly, I believe this nominee has not presented us with evidence that he will fight to change the Bush administration record on the environment. Sadly, his record as Governor of Utah is pointed in the opposite direction. For that reason, I am forced to oppose his nomination.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. I think I probably misunderstood the Senator. Did you say that the polluter pays policy has disappeared, is not in existence now?

Mr. DURBIN. Virtually gone.

Mr. INHOFE. Are you aware that 70 percent of the cleanups are paid for by the polluter today?

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator knows better than that I do that when you stop taxing the polluting industry, you stop creating a fund to clean up the sites. The Superfund toxic sites are, frankly, just sitting there. Nothing is being done because the money is not being collected in the Superfund for enforcement.

The reason is, this administration said we are going to have a hands-off policy when it comes to the polluting industry. Any money going into Superfund has to come from the general tax fund, and then as a consequence of their budget there is no money in the fund. So this Superfund approach is a dream come true for polluting industries. This is the first President, Democrat or Republican, to turn his back on the responsibility of polluting industries to clean up toxic waste and, frankly, it appears that Governor Leavitt wants to continue that policy.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. INHOFE. Is the Senator aware that the tax to which he is referring went out in 1995 during the Clinton administration; it was not requested to be renewed at any time during the remainder of the Clinton Presidency, nor has it since that time? Secondly, the reason is that the policy that you should pass a tax on business to pay for pollution cleanup that they had nothing to do with is not a fair policy.

Mr. DURBIN. I say in response, and my time is probably running out, there was an adequate balance in the Superfund to go forward during the Clinton administration because of the collections from these polluting industries. Now that that Superfund is virtually bankrupt and without funds, what the Bush administration has said is we would not dare ask the polluting industries. Instead, we ask every taxpaying family and business in America to pay for Superfund cleanup. That is fundamentally unfair.

Why should ordinary taxpayers face the responsibility of pollution and toxic waste created by an industry? The Superfund, which has been supported by Democratic and Republican Presidents, and rejected by this President, I think was a fair approach. Because this President will not fund it and because he will not come back and ask for the polluting industries to pay, there is no money for the Superfund cleanup.

What do we have left? We have the stern policy from the administration and a new administrator who says he supports it. The result of it? More toxic waste sites in my State, perhaps in the Senator's, that are there to endanger public health. How can that possibly be in the best interest of America?

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senate will yield further?

Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. INHOFE. The policy is what I was trying to get to. First, it is a fact that the tax ran out during a Democratic administration, that of President Clinton. Secondly, the policy to say let's pass a tax on any business out there, or any industry out there, whether or not they pollute anything, and they have to pay for whomever is polluting, when today 70 percent of the cleanup—these are the figures—are being paid for by those who are polluting, it is a polluters' pay policy that is working today.

Mr. DURBIN. I will reclaim my time and say to the Senator, if I am not mistaken, the period of time when the tax was not reinstated was a period of time when the Republicans were in control of Congress.

Stepping aside from that for a moment, the Senator from Oklahoma is gifted in this area, understands it better than most and understands how little is being done today because there is no money in the Superfund to pay for the toxic cleanup. So as a consequence, this administration neither puts the revenue in the budget nor reinstates the tax on polluters and basically says we are going to turn a blind eye to toxic waste sites across America, which endanger the water supply of communities all across the board.

How can that be right for our children or the families who are unwittingly being exposed to this kind of pollution? That is the kind of policy which we need to oppose and, frankly, it is the kind of policy which I am afraid Governor Leavitt supports and that is why I cannot support his nomination.

I yield the floor.