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. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to add a few words of my own to the debate about Governor Leavitt's nomination. I have here a chart that I think reflects my concerns about what we have seen happen with regard to the nomination of this highly qualified individual to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It says:

Obstruction, it's not just for judges anymore.

I have the honor of serving on a number of committees in the Senate, one of which is the Judiciary Committee where, unfortunately, I have become somewhat accustomed to controversy and problems relating to unprecedented filibusters which have prevented an up-or-down vote when a bipartisan majority of the Senate actually stands ready to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees. So you can imagine my surprise and my consternation when, in fact, we have seen now the same sort of obstructionist tactics that have become, unfortunately, all too common in judicial nominations leak over into the deliberations of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Sadly, rather than working with Governor Leavitt to ensure the EPA is doing all it can and should do to protect this Nation's environment, some in this Chamber have chosen this as an opportunity to score political points. They have turned to another good nominee as yet another proxy for personal and political battles. It is clear to me they seek to attack an extremely qualified and honorable man in order to score political points with various special interest groups.

Governor Leavitt's extensive experience and impressive environmental gains in his home State of Utah make him eminently qualified to serve. Indeed, when Governor Leavitt came before the Environment and Public Works Committee, many of my Democratic colleagues noted his qualifications. They said, for example, he was "a person of principle." They held him in "very high personal regard." They called him "bright," and a "hard worker," who is "very good at building consensus" and a "man of integrity."

Indeed, I agreed with those characterizations. But rather than treating Governor Leavitt as the qualified nominee he is, some on the other side of this aisle have seen fit to give his nomination no respect at all. The reality is obstructing Governor Leavitt's nomination only delays strong leadership where we need it dearly, and that is at the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency. Delaying a vote to confirm him only delays implementation of programs those of us who are in favor of a cleaner environment would like to see served. Unfortunately, many who claim to be pro-environment now find themselves in the very ironic position of being anti-environment, from the standpoint of opposing making sure the EPA has the kind of strong leadership it needs to navigate a very difficult job.

The truth is, political blackmail will not clean our rivers and our streams. Heated rhetoric will not improve our air quality. Jockeying for position during a Presidential primary at the expense of a nominee with a proven record will not protect our children from future environmental threats.

With the exception of greenhouse gases, all air pollutants have been declining for decades. I direct my comments now to the criticism that really seemed to go not so much to Governor Leavitt but at the administration, at the administration of President George W. Bush. In all of the attempts to try to discredit the President and the current administration on environmental issues, you might conclude-or someone who is perhaps not well informed might well conclude-pollution is running rampant in our country. In fact, the opposite is true. The truth, as I said, is, with the exception of greenhouse gases, all air pollutants that are tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency have declined dramatically over the past decades. They have declined under President Reagan. They declined under President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President Clinton, and they declined even more under President George W. Bush.

The EPA has done a study and found that thousands of monitoring stations across the country have shown a tremendous improvement in our environment over the last 20 years. Overall, aggregate emissions of the six principal air pollutants have declined by 48 percent since 1970, despite the fact that the American population has grown by 39 percent during that period.

Most people reading the newspaper and watching television could be excused if they had the impression that our environment was getting dirtier and dirtier, when the truth is it is getting cleaner and cleaner. Unfortunately, too many partisans have found it politically helpful to them to mischaracterize the facts.

Some critics have recently targeted the President's proposed reforms in the New Source Review concerning aging powerplants in the Midwest. But what they neglect to mention is emissions from these very same facilities have been declining at a steady rate, even as electricity production has increased. Emissions have declined by 40 percent since 1980. The old 1977 ideas behind New Source Review assume you get cleaner air if you impose tighter emissions regulations on newer plants rather than old ones. That kind of thinking might work with a car, because when cars get old, people replace them. But powerplants are different. Many old powerplants are still operating, and I believe we need to put common sense back into our environmental policies by reforming New Source Review rules. If your plant wants to reduce emissions and increase productivity, the Government should not stick you in the eye. It should pat you on the back. But it is not just air quality that has improved. All forms of water pollution have declined for decades as well.

In 1970, approximately one-third of lakes and rivers in the United States received the Clean Water Act definition of "safe for fishing and swimming." Today, nearly two-thirds of lakes and rivers meet that standard.

Forested space has also been increasing in acreage-not declining-for more than a decade. Our forests continue to expand under President Bush, and trees continue to be one of our greatest and best managed renewable resources.

Finally, there is this simple fact: No animal species in the United States has fallen extinct since the full implementation of the Endangered Species Act in the late 1970s. Indeed, many important species are now experiencing positive population growth.

In the face of these facts, I find it very hard to believe the unfounded criticism of this President's commitment to environmental protection. The condition of the environment has improved since President Bush took office, and it will continue to improve as a result of his innovative reforms. It will continue to improve if our colleagues across the aisle will end the politics of obstruction and allow the confirmation of this highly qualified nominee who is a wise choice. I have no doubt that he will continue the great progress which this administration has made on environmental issues-seeking the goal of cleaner air and safer water for all of us.

The extremists in this debate are not seeking balance or commonsense solutions or, in fact, what is best for the American people. Instead, they see this as a zero sum game-a proxy for political interests, and they have chosen obstruction as one of their tactics.

Ultimately, this results in political blackmail that just makes victims of us all. Governor Leavitt's reputation falls victim to unwarranted and disrespectful attacks, a responsible Senate falls victim to vicious political blather, and the American people fall victim to politicians who are more attracted to serving special interests than the public interest.

If the President's critics on the environment are truly committed to protecting and preserving it, they should have put aside their political agenda and allowed the Senate to vote on Governor Leavitt's nomination. Obstruction won't clean the air, protect our rivers and streams, or preserve our environment for future generations.

I am sad to say but it is clearly true that when it comes to obstruction, it is not just for judges anymore. I urge my colleagues to reconsider their tactics, vote to invoke cloture, and allow the President's nominees to have an up-or-down vote and ultimately confirm this fine nominee, Governor Leavitt.

I yield the floor.