Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will yield in a minute to the Senator from Nebraska.

Last night we went into a lot of detail in this debate and I used three groups of scientists, numbering over 20,000, who refute the science on which global warming is based. Only two criticisms did I get from the other side. One was comments I made about supposedly misquoting Professor Schneider. After looking at this, I find I did not misquote him at all. He is one who adheres to the MIT study that says there is far less than 1 percent chance temperatures would rise to 5.18 degrees or higher, while there is a 17 percent chance that temperatures would rise lower than 1.4 degrees. These are the guys who are for this.

More significant--and this is setting the framework for this debate today. This is not about a pared-down bill McCain-Lieberman are coming up with now. They have both said this is just a start.

I will quote Professor Wigley, one I was criticized for misquoting. We find out I did not. He said:

Senator Inhofe quotes my 1998 publication . . . where I

pointed out that adhering to the emissions reductions

outlined in the Kyoto Protocol would have only a small effect

on the system. What he fails to point out is this analysis

assumed that Kyoto was followed to 2010, and there were no

subsequent system climate mitigation policies. The point of

the paper was to show that Kyoto was to be considered only

the first step of a long and complex process of reducing our

dependency on fossil fuels as a primary energy source.

The chart of Senator Sununu shows how little change would be possible under this.

I yield to the Senator from Nebraska for 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to Senator Craig.

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to probably the best informed Senator who was the chairman of the Governor's clean air committee.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Voinovich for making his statement. I will be specific. The amount of jobs in his State alone, if this passes, would be 178,000.

For any other Members who want to know how their States will be affected, we have that breakdown. It is a study by Penn State University. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu. I hope we will look very carefully at the chart he has. It is probably the most significant chart, other than the jobs chart we have.

Mr. President, while I appreciate the comments made by my good friend from Arizona, I would only say some of the things there--I know he doesn't intend to say things that aren't true. I would like to quote an article that was in this morning's USA Today. James Morison, who is a scientist with the University of Washington--this is a front page article in USA Today--said the temperature increases and the shifts in winds and ocean currents occurred early in the 1990s and have since ``relaxed.'' This is a recent discovery.

These big changes ``are not related to (global) climate

change.''

This was just in this morning's paper, speaking of the Arctic Circle.

So if we have time, when I have a chance to wind up, I want to repeat some of the things I said about the flawed science on which all these things are based. Until then, I recognize the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, for a time not to exceed 12 minutes.

Mr. President, to draw to conclusion this debate, let me repeat a couple of things we did last night. I will briefly address the science issue. I know there are people out there thinking the science is settled. The science is not settled. Last night I went into detail and I will repeat a couple of significant points.

First, Frederick Seitz, the past president of the National Academy of Sciences, compiled the Oregon petition which had 17,800 independently verified signatures--most of those holding degrees of Ph.D. They came to this conclusion: There is no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Again, the Heidelberg Appeal, over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners, signed this Heidelberg Appeal that says there is no compelling evidence that is existing today to justify controls of anthropogenic--man made--greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT scientist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, said--and I don't think anyone would question his credentials--said there is a definite disconnect between Kyoto and science. Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct, Kyoto would not prevent it.

Lastly, the Harvard-Smithsonian study, the most exhaustive study out there, 240 peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers over the last four decades, says the science is flawed. It is important people realize that is the situation.

Probably the most significant item we should have been talking about all the time instead of this science--since it is a fact now, I think people understand there are scientists on both sides of this issue--is what is the effect.

Last night we had a chance to talk about the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, how it would disproportionately hurt them in losing jobs. A study that no one has challenged concluded that Kyoto would cost 511,000 jobs of Hispanic workers and 864,000 jobs held by Black workers. Is this something we all understand?

My chart is revealing if Members need statistics for their own State. The State of Illinois is losing 159,000 jobs; the State of Indiana loses 194,000. This is a study done by Penn State University.

The other significant point is that we are voting on an amendment. This amendment is somewhat pared down. Everyone realizes that this amendment, as has been stated many times by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut as well as the Senator from Arizona, is just a first step. So everyone has to look at this. This is the Kyoto Treaty. It needs to be looked at in that respect.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

All right. I say to the Senator from Connecticut, if it is your wish, I will be very glad to defer to you to conclude debate on this matter.

Mr. President, let me get back to something the Senator from Arizona said. He is not on the floor now. He mentioned some of the signatures were not verified. They keep using this same argument, which has been refuted over and over again. The Perry Mason he refers to happens to be a Ph.D. chemist. It is documented. Again, we are talking about some 17,000 scientists there. There are 4,000 scientists on the Heidelberg Petition.

Of course, Richard Lindzen, I don't think anyone is going to question his credibility. These studies--particularly the Harvard-Smithsonian study--is a very significant one.

I think the debate has been good. I do not question it when the Senator from Arizona--who I respect immensely--says we will be back. I am hoping it will be necessary to come back because I am hoping we will defeat this amendment. But it is very significant.

Lastly, let me mention I do not know how so many of these groups could be wrong. We have almost every union in the country--the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Mine Workers, the United Steel Workers. We have all these jobs shown up here, some 3.6 million jobs, that would be lost. This analysis was done by a credible organization, Penn State University.

I cannot imagine that any Member of this Senate would come up here and look at this chart and not realize that here we are--we have been going through a recession that began in March of 2000, and we are now pulling out of this recession. The jobs are looking good right now. For something such as this to pass would push us right back in a devastating position.

So when you look at what we are talking about today, we are talking about something that would pass in America and that would not have anything to do with Mexico, anything to do with China, anything to do with India. I can assure you, right now people from those countries are sitting back with their fingers crossed, hoping this passes, because this would be the biggest jobs bill for Mexico and India and the other developing nations that we could pass.

I say to Senator Lieberman, thank you very much for the spirited debate, as I also thank the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, if there is any.

I reserve that.

I believe, Mr. President, I have 1 second remaining.

Mr. President, in my last second, I ask unanimous consent that the list of labor unions, agricultural organizations, and other organizations opposing S. 139 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. We have just voted on the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the underlying bill be referred back to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Mr. President, it is my understanding there are 3 hours tonight equally divided, which would be an hour and a half for each side. Because of something that happened today in Colorado, I yield up to 7 minutes of our time to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard.

Mr. President, first of all, let me just make a couple of comments, and then I will yield to the Senator from Missouri.

I know it is so easy to stand up here and talk about ``the science is irrefutable,'' talk about how different groups are supporting S. 139. I know neither the distinguished Senator from Arizona nor the distinguished Senator from Connecticut would intentionally say something that is not true. However, some of the things they are saying are not true. They are not factual.

A little bit later I am going to be going into detail on this science question. The science that has been reviewed since 1999 is overwhelmingly on the side that global warming, in fact, is not occurring and, if it is occurring, is not a result of manmade anthropogenic gases.

I would also like to say, I will be talking about some of these groups that supposedly are supporting this bill who, in fact, are not supporting this bill. But I am going to save that for a few minutes because we have several Members who will be coming in on our side who will be wanting to address this issue. For that reason, I now yield to the Senator from Missouri 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I have talked to our good friend, my brother, the Senator from Hawaii, and he has graciously agreed to let one of our Members go first before he is recognized.

At this time, I yield to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.

Before yielding to Senator Voinovich, I was honored to chair the Clean Air Subcommittee prior to the time I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee. During that time, Senator Voinovich was Governor Voinovich. He was the chairman of the Governors Clean Air Committee. I don't believe there is anyone in this Senate who has a better knowledge of air problems or who has higher credentials than the Senator from Ohio.

At this time, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Will the Senator yield?

I am glad you brought that up. That was the information I had on who is opposed to it, naming Synergy. The Senator from Connecticut said they are now supporting S. 139. You have information to the contrary, is that correct?

Mr. President, I yield an additional 3 minutes from our side to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, we have agreed to go back and forth. I know Senator Akaka has been waiting for a while. Certainly it is all right to go to him. I wish to make one point first.

It is a little unfair and unrealistic--and I want to make sure everyone interested in this issue understands, we have had the McCain- Lieberman bill for months now, and we have all had a chance to study it. The fact they changed this bill and they are saying you are not talking about the bill before you now, that did not happen until 11:53 this morning. We have not had a chance to see it.

The bottom line is this: As was stated by the Senator from Connecticut, this is just a start. So if their bill is just a start, what it does is recognize CO2 as a pollutant, and that changes the policy for America. I think the debate from this point forward should go on as if we are talking about the original McCain- Lieberman bill. That is what we will be doing.

I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I had yielded to the Senator from Connecticut, so let me respond. There are other provisions that arose this morning that no one has seen. It is a new bill. It is a different bill. The Senator may have talked about it in the Commerce Committee. I am not on the Commerce Committee.

I will say this: To receive a bill after months and months of having this bill to look at, preparing our case, only to find out at the last minute, since they obviously didn't have the votes, it was changed, and we received it at 11:53, is not realistic.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, I would like to inquire as to the amount of time we have left on our side.

All right. Mr. President, I was telling my good friend from Connecticut a few minutes ago, if we keep hearing it repeated that ``the science is real, the science is real, the science is real,'' sooner or later they are going to start believing it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me just say, first of all, reference was made by one of the speakers to the Byrd-Hagel resolution that was passed 95 to 0. What did that resolution say? The resolution said, if there is economic damage or if the developing countries do not have to do the same thing the developed nations do, then we are not going to ratify the treaty. That is exactly what they came back with.

So here we have a situation now that is even worse because we are talking about passing a bill that would put the United States of America in a position where they have to do something that not only the developing nations do not have to do, but even the developed nations do not have to do.

So I can tell you right now, there are a lot of people in China who are rejoicing, thinking: Boy, all those American jobs are going to come to us if they pass this. In India, they are rejoicing; in Brazil, the same thing. In South Korea, President Roh, and President Vincente Fox of Mexico would be delighted to think about the great jobs that would go there--many of which have already gone there because of some of our overregulation in this country.

Like Kyoto, this is an extreme approach. I am not going to try to figure out which bill we are talking about. The McCain-Lieberman bill has been around now for months. And now, at 11:53 this morning, they changed it. I don't know what was changed.

But I would say this: This is a cartoon that appeared that I think you will enjoy, I say to Senator Lieberman. It is the camel's nose under the tent, the fact that if you get just a little bit here, then all of a sudden the rest of it will come in. And the rest of it is the body of Kyoto.

Now, why do I say that? I say that because they are actually saying one thing. I don't care how they change their bill, they are changing the policy of America to make us believe and have, as a new policy, that CO2 is a pollutant. CO2 is not a pollutant. Other things are pollutants.

In fact, we have the Clear Skies Act which the President of the United States, President Bush, is promoting. It has the largest reduction in emissions that any President has ever promoted, with a 70- percent reduction. And those are in sulfur dioxide and mercury.

But in this case here, just to show you that nothing really has changed by the last minute change, these features--the covered gases, emission caps, timetables, emissions trading, wealth transfer, emissions reporting, sequestration and sinks, verification, and future racheting--those are the same things that are in the current bill that appeared in the bill mysteriously at 11:53.

Now, I would like to suggest we have heard a lot of hysteria tonight. We are going to hear it tomorrow for 2 more hours--no, 1 more hour. That time is going to be equally divided, and they are going to be talking about the horrible things that are going to happen, the ice caps are going to be breaking, all these things.

I would suggest to you, Mr. President, we heard the same thing a few years ago. Looking at a couple magazines--this is Science Digest. They came out, and they said: ``Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age.'' The same people who are talking about warming today were talking about bracing yourself for another ice age. If there were time, I would read the script. It is really enlightening to do so. I would encourage my fellow Senators to do that.

Then, Time magazine came out, and they have ``Another Ice Age?'' They talked about these horrible things that are going to happen: We are not going to be able to grow anything anymore. We are going to have to shut down businesses because we are no longer going to be able to function because we have another ice age--not global warming, global cooling.

Then along came Newsweek, and it says: ``The Cooling World.'' They talk about the horrible things that are going to happen.

So it seems to me it is the strategy of those individuals who are catering to the extreme environmental left to try to scare people. And there is no reason to do that.

Now, I think probably the most significant thing I am going to be talking about tonight is to try to make people realize that if you say something enough times, as we keep hearing--as I mentioned a minute ago, about the science being real, about it is proven, and all that-- sooner or later people believe it. One reason is we do have a liberal national media, and they would like to have people believe that.

Now, we heard a lot of discussion about the National Academy of Sciences. I would like to quote Dr. Frederick Seitz, who is the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and 17,800 other independently verified signers.

Now, the Senator from Arizona talked about the 1,010 scientists. We are talking about 17,800. This is what the Oregon petition said. This is a petition that was put together by the lead, Dr. Frederick Seitz, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, along with 17,800 other signatures:

We urge the U.S. government to reject the global warming

agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December,

1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on

greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the

advance of science and technology, and damage the health and

welfare of mankind.

This is the former president of the National Academy of Sciences. He goes on to say:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human

release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases

is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause

catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption

of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial

scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon

dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural

plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Now, this is significant. We are talking about not only is CO2 not a pollutant--which it is not a pollutant--but it is a fertilizer. It is something that helps us and something that would be to the benefit to have more of, not less.

Now, in addition, there are over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel prize winners, who have signed the Heidelberg appeal.

The Heidelberg appeal says: No compelling evidence exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse gas

emissions. Anthropogenic is the term meaning ``man-made.'' We keep hearing the Senator from New York talking about the man-made gases. It does not exist. These are 4,000 scientists. Look at some of the scientists we are talking about. They are on this list. It is too many to delineate at this time. The bottom line is that the science just flat is not there.

Ninety percent of the science--in fact, 100 percent of the science I have heard the other side talk about tonight is all science that they allege happened, but it was all before 1999. What we are talking about are things that have happened since then. There has been a turnaround.

Last July 8, James Schlesinger--we all remember him; he certainly is no Republican--the Energy Secretary to former President Carter, said:

There is an idea among the public that the science is

settled. That remains far from the truth.

He goes on to talk about the fact that the science is not sound behind the myth, the hoax of global warming.

It is important to realize that the IPCC, which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, came from the United Nations with the idea that they are making the recommendations. The lead scientist behind that was a scientist named Dr. Michael Mann.

What we have done here is talk about what has happened in terms of the science that has come from this recent 2003 science, as opposed to what came under Michael Mann or the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One is the detail, less hemispheric, and the information that they used, the age of the data. Under Michael Mann it was older, 1999 or before. The newer is after the IPCC. This is all new stuff. I will submit this for the Record because it is all very self- explanatory.

Several times reference was made by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut to MIT and what MIT is saying to us. I would like to quote Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT scientist and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Both of these--MIT and National Academy of Sciences--were used to fortify the case that this hoax called greenhouse gas is a reality. This is what Dr. Rich Lindzen said. He has specialized in the climate issue for over 30 years. He told the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee I chair:

There is a definite disconnect between Kyoto and science.

Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct, Kyoto would not

prevent it.

These are new discussions that are coming from scientists whose credentials cannot be questioned. Again, it is MIT science--we heard that a few minutes ago--and the National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. David Legates is director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. This is going back to Michael Mann, the guy who is the scientist behind the IPCC, all this stuff that we have been hearing. Dr. Legates said:

Although [Mann's work] is now widely used as proof of

anthropogenic global warming, we've become concerned that

such an analysis is in direct contradiction to most of the

research and written histories available. Our paper shows

this contradiction and argues that the results of Mann . . .

are out of step with the preponderance of the evidence.

Preponderance of the evidence, we keep hearing the other side say the science there. No one is going to question it. We are all questioning it.

This is from a publication called ``Energy and Environment,'' and this was November 15, last week. It starts talking about the flaws in the logic that were used by the Mann study. The flaws all come out. I will show the greatest flaw of all.

Let me hold this piece of paper up to this side. This is what Dr. Mann has been talking about. He referred to the famous hockey stick. Here is the hockey stick. The shaft goes along here and all of a sudden that is the hockey stick part. That is supposed to be where it is getting so warm. What he failed to do was to go back to the 1400s. If you look at this, the Earth was much warmer, the temperatures were much warmer back then than they are today by a long ways. So it is just leaving out these little convenient things that causes the truth to be distorted.

I think this is probably the most important chart. It shows you what the other side does. They will cover up the part that disclaims everything they are saying and come out and use it as evidence to promote it. I am saying that the temperatures on the Earth's surface were higher in the 1400s than they are today.

One of the most recent things that came out just in March was the Harvard Smithsonian study. This was the most far-reaching study ever made on climate change. It examined the results of more than 240 peer- reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. The study covers a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators. They came to the conclusion that climate change is not real, that the science is not accurate. We will be coming back to that from time to time, probably tomorrow also.

This is the range of climate proxies that were used to come up with the conclusions of the Harvard Smithsonian study. If you read them all, it starts with borehole data, cultural data, glacier advance and retreats, geomorphology, all these things were used. Primarily what was used by Dr. Mann were the tree rings. And this covers every known type of a proxy that could be used. All of this was in the Harvard Smithsonian study.

So I think if you go back one more time to the chart that we had up here that shows how they are misrepresenting the data, if you stop and think about it, just use logic on things that we know. What is incontrovertible? What do we know right now that no one can question? What we know is that there was a medieval warming period. That period was around from 800 A.D. to about 1300. Then there was the little ice age that came along. The little ice age went from 1300 to 1900. Then we went into another warming period that endured from 1900 until 1940.

Something significant happened in 1940. In 1940, we started going into another cooling period. But wait a minute. The 1940s was the decade when the surge came in CO2 emissions. That was during the time when more people were driving, and it happened right after the war. So we had the greatest increase in releases of CO2 during that time, an 80-percent increase.

What did that do? Did that cause warming? It did not. It precipitated a cooling period that endured through the 1970s. I think if you look at that, I don't know how anyone can say that the science is at all favoring--and certainly not recent science--the concept, I call it a hoax, of global warming.

Since I gave a speech on the floor when I used these charts, which I may not have time to do tonight, there have been a lot of things that have come out. The University of Colorado researched the Arctic Circle information. To do that, they actually went down beneath the snowpack in the Colorado Rockies, and the scientists discovered fungi emitting large quantities of carbon dioxide in methane. Of course, this is totally unrelated to manmade emissions. That is not man-made. They are talking about man-made emissions. That is something that was there that was never considered until it was discovered about a month ago. They said in an article in the Washington Post, quoting the scientist:

Indeed, scientists said, if other regions of the world have

similar fungal communities thriving under the winter snows,

as seems likely, climatologists will have to revise their

models of global warming to accommodate fungi surprisingly

massive role in the winter production of greenhouse gases,

such as carbon dioxide.

It went on to say--these are the scientists now, after this discovery just a month ago:

The global warming models can no longer ignore fungi in

snowy regions and seasons as they had, scientists said,

especially because about 40 percent of the landmass is

covered with snow for at least part of the year.

We will revisit this issue, but there is no question that the science refutes everything the alarmists we have heard about have been trying to promote. I think something that would be more meaningful to the Members of this body would be, so what, there is. There is a preacher named Lon Solomon. On the rare occasions I am here on Sunday, I will go out to the McLean Bible Church. Right in the middle of his sermon he says: So what.

We have gone through all this, the science is flawed, it doesn't exist. So what. What is the big deal? The big deal is the economic harm that would

come to this country. Let's examine it for a moment.

Later on I will go over all of the letters, but here is what the teamsters, boilermakers, electrical workers, and others wrote me in a letter on September 9--this past September 9. This is not in 1999. They write:

Mandatory reduction requirements for carbon dioxide and

other greenhouse gases would create much higher energy prices

for consumers and put the economic recovery at risk, while

providing little or no tangible benefit for the global

environment. We, therefore, urge you to vote against S. 139,

the Climate Stewardship Act.

CBO, the Congressional Budget Office--we depend on them for scoring, for coming up with numbers we use to make economic decisions in this body. They said it best:

The price increases resulting from a carbon cap would be

regressive. That is, they would place a relatively greater

burden on lower income households than on higher income

households.

A minute ago we heard Senator Voinovich from Ohio. During one of our committee hearings, a guy named Tom Mullen, who is the president of Catholic Charities, testified before our committee and said:

The overall impact on the economy in northeast Ohio would

be overwhelming, and the needs that we address at Catholic

Charities in Ohio with the elderly and poor would be well

beyond our capacity and that of our current partners in

government and the private sector.

You heard about the harassment he has been subjected to because he cares--sincerely, genuinely cares--about these older people.

What about minorities? According to a study by the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, if the United States ratifies Kyoto or passes domestic climate policies--that is what we are talking about, effectively implementing the treaty; that is their goal--the result would ``disproportionately harm America's minority communities, and place the economic advancement of millions of U.S. Blacks and Hispanics at risk.''

That was the Center for Energy and Economic Development doing a study for the Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

It gets down to being more specific. We find out from this study that the Kyoto issue we are talking about right now would cost 511,000 jobs by Hispanic workers and 864,000 jobs held by black workers. Poverty rates for minority families will increase dramatically, and because Kyoto will bring about higher energy prices, many minority businesses would be lost.

Here is a chart that shows the unemployment rate this study revealed. This study was sanctioned by the Black and Hispanic Chambers of Commerce because of their concern. Keep in mind all these things will happen to them, and yet there is no science or logic behind those decisions.

This information came from Pennsylvania State University. They did a study. In this study, they break it down by State as to how many jobs are going to be lost. I will point out a couple of States.

Illinois would lose, if we were to pass S. 139, 159,000 jobs. I hope the Senators from Illinois are watching right now because 159,000 jobs is not what they would want. Ironically, in Indiana, they would lose 194,000 jobs. In Michigan--and that is a big auto State--they would lose 133,000 jobs. They tell you we are going to carve out a special deal for the autos. Look, this is the nose-under-the-tent concept. They now say if we adopt this, our policy is the science is real and global warming, in fact, exists.

In Pennsylvania--and I am sure the Pennsylvania Senators are very sensitive to this--they would lose, if we pass this bill, 178,000 jobs. In the State of West Virginia, it will be 126,000 jobs; in Wisconsin, 113,000 jobs; for the interest of the Senator presiding, over 100,000 jobs in the State of Minnesota.

Something was stated by the Senator from Connecticut concerning farms. He said we are going to carve out farmers and agriculture, that nothing is going to happen there. Standard & Poor's Data Resource International did a study--again, a very recent study. They talked about what is going to happen.

Let me share with my colleagues what will happen to the agricultural families in America, according to Standard & Poor's. You can discredit Standard & Poor's, but I don't think you will get by with it. They are legitimate.

Fewer small family farms: Higher energy costs, together with the reduced domestic and export demand, would lead to a severe decline in agricultural investment and a sharp increase in farm consolidations. The number of small farms likely would decline much more rapidly than under business-as-usual conditions.

Higher production costs: Production costs would increase by up to $16 billion, an increase of almost 9 percent, and would be difficult for agriculture to pass on to the consumers. These higher production costs include a $13 billion increase in manufactured input--that is fuel, fertilizer, and chemicals--expenditures, and $1.6 billion increase in farm origin.

Lower demand for agricultural products: Weaker demand for agricultural products results both from the 1.6 percent decline in GDP and 2.4 percent decrease in consumers' disposable income. It goes on and on.

Higher food program costs: If you are not sensitive to the farmer, you ought to be sensitive to the people who have to eat in this country. For example, USDA spends more than $39 billion for six food assistance programs, including the Food Stamp Program--there are a lot of people interested in that program--and child nutrition programs. We talk about that every day.

For these programs alone, emission controls from the protocol would add 500,000 persons to the food stamp rolls and increase program costs up to 5 percent annually.

Again, this is not Senator Jim Inhofe talking. I am not qualified to make these assessments. This is a study made by a Standard & Poor's research group.

Getting back to the MIT joint program, since they have been used quite a bit, the MIT Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change, the average crop yield is 30 percent higher in a CO2-enhanced world.

That is what the Senator from Utah was talking about.

I inquire from the Chair as to our remaining time.

I reserve the remainder of my time. I am anxious to hear from the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Arizona.

May I interrupt for a question?

I do not believe I mentioned Dr. Wigley in my remarks. It must have been somebody else.

I do not believe I mentioned Dr. Wigley in my remarks.

Since it was called to our attention that tradition would have it you wrap up, you may have the last 23 seconds. Let me say to my good friend from Arizona--and he is a good friend--you can talk about these people. He talked about 1,010 scientists. I talked about over 20,000 scientists who have agreed with this, looked at this, and said it doesn't really exist. I have talked about sources that cannot be impugned by anyone. I am talking about the Smithsonian, Harvard, Standard & Poor's, and others.

Let me just mention I have saved, I think, the best for last because, yes, we are concerned about jobs. That is the biggest concern we have in America now. Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates came out with something that delineated exactly the damage that would be done to America and that it would cost 2.4 million U.S. jobs. That is why the labor unions are involved in this. It would reduce GDP by 3.2 percent, or about $300 billion, which is more than we spend on primary and secondary education combined.

They said because of Kyoto, American consumers would face higher medical, food, and housing costs. Tomorrow I will delineate exactly how much that is. At the same time, an average household of four would see its real income drop by $2,700 by 2010, and each year thereafter.

They go on to say--this is the Wharton School of Economics:

Under Kyoto, energy and electricity prices would nearly

double and gasoline prices would go up an additional 65 cents

a gallon.

I know I am almost out of time. Since it was brought up by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut about the farmers, let me tell you who is frantically trying to stop us from destroying the American farmer: the International Dairy Foods Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattle and Beef Association, National Food Processors Association, National Grange, the National Oilseed Producers, the American Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association. The list goes on and on, because these people are very much concerned about the competitive disadvantage in which they would find themselves.

I would also have to say I invite my very good friend from Arizona to go back and search the record of my remarks, the 40-minute talk I made a few minutes ago. Nowhere in that talk are the two names--what were they, Wigley and Schneider?--who were mentioned during that time. Tomorrow there will be ample opportunity to address that issue.

We are talking about a big deal. You wonder what the motivation is? I will quote a couple of people. If the science is not real, if it inflicts all this damage on America, then what could possibly be the motivation? I think maybe Jacques Chirac, the President of France, the other day was correct when he said, ``Kyoto is not about climate. It is the first component of an authentic global governance.''

Do we really want to have France dictating policies to us?

Let me just say I will yield the remainder of my time. I think it would be only fair if I get an additional 3 minutes, that they get an additional 3 minutes, too, and I don't want that to happen.

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.

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

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.

Madam President, how much time remains on both sides?

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.

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.

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

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.

And with that I ask the minority, do they have anyone else who wants the time?

I yield at this time the final 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, in looking around, I do not see any other speakers, so I would like to be recognized for whatever time I shall consume.

First, Madam President, I do rise in strong support-- strong support--of Mike Leavitt to be confirmed as Administrator of the EPA. I think this vote is long overdue. But for those who have watched this nomination closely, we have seen a spectacle that does not reflect favorably on this institution.

Governor Michael Leavitt is a kind, courteous, and decent person. Everyone who knows him loves him. Very rarely do you see that in politicians--other than the Presiding Officer, of course. But everyone seems to love Mike Leavitt. He is that kind of a person. Yet from day one his nomination has been delayed and obstructed by partisanship and Presidential politics.

I watched this play out with real disappointment because the process surrounding these nominations has never succumbed to such pressures. Today, we are going to move beyond this obstacle and show to the American people what everyone in this debate well knows; that is, Governor Leavitt enjoys overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans.

This process, which has dragged on now for over 50 days, has been somewhat perplexing to me because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have nothing but the highest praise for Governor Leavitt.

The other day my good friend, Senator Jeffords, the ranking member on this committee, said:

First of all, it has nothing to do with the qualifications

of Mr. Leavitt. I will vote for him and I am hopeful that at

the same point I will be able to do so. I look forward to

that. I consider him a friend. I have worked with him in the

past on matters of education. The issues are not related to

his qualifications.

I say to my good friend from Vermont, I appreciate that testament very much.

Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat Senator from Nebraska, who is a former Governor who served with Mike Leavitt, wrote a strong letter of support for Governor Leavitt. He said in his letter:

But beyond his record of achievement for the citizens of

Utah, I have also found Governor Leavitt to be easy to work

with, open to new ideas, and willing to make sensible

compromises to reach shared goals. I believe nearly

everyone--if not everyone--with whom Governor Leavitt [has]

worked in the NGA [National Governors Association] would

state they had a favorable impression of him. As we know all

too well, such a record is important for any federal

position, but particularly one such as this, where there

needs to be much coordination with our State governments. . .

.

Still quoting Democrat Senator Ben Nelson:

I wholeheartedly support Mike Leavitt's nomination to serve

as EPA Administrator. He is eminently qualified for the

position; but even more than that, he has both the

personality and the desire to be successful at the job.

As the preceding quotes show, those who have worked with Governor Leavitt hold him in the highest regard. Those who have seen his dedication and commitment to solving environmental problems all support him.

Last week my committee received a letter from Governor Bill Richardson, with whom I used to serve over in the House, the Governor of New Mexico--another Democrat Governor. This is what he said about Governor Leavitt:

He has worked effectively with other Governors regardless

of party. Obviously the same willingness and ability to work

collaboratively with other elected and appointed

environmental officials is crucial to the effectiveness of

any EPA Administrator.

Mike Leavitt is a consensus builder and can bring people together.

Again, these are things that Democrats say about him. Many have heard me recount the details of Governor Leavitt's long distinguished career in public service, but considering the circumstances, I think they are worth recounting again. His resume is absolutely stellar. He was the chairman of the National Governors Association, the Republican Governors Association, the Western Governors Association. His record on environmental accomplishment reflects his experience. Just look at the facts:

Utah meets all Federal air quality requirements. That is very rare. Utah meets all Federal air quality requirements. This was not true when Governor Leavitt was first elected. Visibility in the West has improved dramatically, largely as a result of Governor Leavitt's service as cochairman of the Western Regional Air Partnership and vice chairman of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The Commission has made over 70 recommendations, improving visibility at 16 national parks and wilderness areas in the Colorado plateau.

During his 11-year tenure, Governor Leavitt made great strides in improving Utah's water. The State's watersheds are now among the cleanest in the Nation. Thirty-seven percent of Utah's streams currently meet Federal water quality standards compared to 59 percent 10 years ago, a 24-percent improvement since Governor Leavitt took office 11 years ago. Currently, 60 percent of the Nation's streams meet this standard.

I return briefly to the process behind this nomination, because I hope we won't repeat it at any time in the future since it was unprecedented. Let there be no question that Governor Leavitt was subjected to a double standard. First, prior to Governor Leavitt's hearing, the minority demanded that Governor Leavitt answer nearly 100 prehearing questions. That was unprecedented.

Second, prior to his markup, committee Democrats submitted nearly 400 questions to Governor Leavitt. The Democrats submitted nearly 400 questions to Governor Leavitt. The volume, again, is unprecedented.

Let's compare this to the nomination of Carol Browner. In 1993, she received a mere 67 questions from Republicans. Even Governor Christie Whitman, in 2001, received approximately only 100 questions from the Democrats. Let's look at how long it took to approve previous nominees to head the EPA. In 1989, the first President Bush nominated William Reilly. The Senate received his nomination on January 20. The EPW Committee, the committee I chair, had a hearing on January 31 and then reported him to the floor on February 2, the same day he was confirmed by the Senate. All told, the nomination took just 13 days.

How about Carol Browner? The Senate received her nomination January 20. The EPW Committee actually had a hearing for Ms. Browner on January 11, 9 days before she was officially nominated. She was reported out by the EPW Committee on January 19, 8 days after the hearing. She was confirmed by the Senate on January 21. From the time of her hearing to the day she was confirmed, just 10 days.

Governor Whitman faced a similar path. She was confirmed by the Senate just 13 days after nomination. Let's repeat that: Bill Reilly was 13 days; Carol Browner, 10 days; Whitman, 13 days. Governor Leavitt has now waited 55 days. Some on the other side argue that comparisons of timing with previous nominees is unfair. In their view those nominations were made at the beginning of a new administration, so there is no environmental record to judge. I find this very interesting.

Here the other side is essentially admitting that the nomination is about President Bush, not about Mike Leavitt because they are talking about President Bush's record. I think that is very unfair. It has nothing to do with Mike Leavitt. For weeks we have heard nothing about Governor Leavitt and everything about President Bush. We have heard that under President Bush the air is dirtier, more kids are suffering from asthma attacks, respiratory diseases; precious lakes, rivers, streams, and forests are more polluted, and big oil's campaign contributions are corrupting national environmental policy.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is all false, empty rhetoric extremist groups use to raise money. They conveniently ignore the fact that President Bush has proposed the most aggressive Presidential initiatives to reduce pollutants, a 70-percent reduction. No President in history has proposed such a thing. They ignore the fact that he introduced the landmark brownfields legislation which my friend from Vermont and I were very active in getting through. They ignore that according to EPA, air quality has improved since President Bush took office.

Let me mention a couple other things since it seems to be that we have President Bush's record in front of us as opposed to Governor Leavitt. First, there couldn't be a better record of any President than the current President Bush.

Greg Easterbrook, senior editor for the very liberal New Republic magazine, not a Republican, writing for a liberal publication, writes that ``most of the charges made against the White House are baloney,'' made for ``purposes of partisan political bashing and fund-raising.'' He also contends that ``Environmental lobbies raise money better in an atmosphere of panic, and so they are exaggerating the case against Bush.'' In his view, President Bush's new rules for diesel engines and diesel fuel ``should lead to the biggest pollution reduction since the 1991 Clean Air Act amendment.'' Air pollution, he writes, continues to decline under President Bush.

That is not a conservative Republican talking. That is not anyone connected with this administration. That is the other side that is normally critical of Republicans and conservatives.

I am very familiar with the Clear Skies Act. I am anxious to get the act before the Senate and hopefully Congress will consider it, too. That is a 70-percent reduction in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and mercury. It represents the largest pollution reduction initiative ever proposed by any American President.

Clear Skies uses a cap and trade system. This limits the total amount of emissions from the utility industry and allows them to determine how to achieve these reductions. The bill thus far has been held up by environmental extremists who are playing politics with the issue of CO2. It is unfortunate because this bill will provide immediate health benefits to the American people and reduce acid rain.

Air quality has improved immensely over the last 30 years and has continued since the Bush administration took

office. Clear Skies will continue that trend.

Cleaner fields and engines: This administration is a consistent advocate of tougher controls on harmful air pollution caused by diesel engines. The diesel rule, a rule requiring new heavy duty trucks and buses to run cleaner, will cut harmful pollutions by 95 percent. When fully implemented, the controls proposed in the rule will reduce 2.6 million tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxide emissions each year, and soot or particulate matter will be reduced by 110,000 tons a year.

Diesel retrofit is a voluntary partnership program with State, local, and industry to reduce mobile source emissions by retrofitting diesel engines. Commitments made to retrofit over 130,000 diesel engines in trucks, buses, locomotives, and construction equipment will eliminate more than 200,000 tons of harmful pollution from the air.

The Clean School Bus Act USA: This new program highlights the Bush administration's commitment to reducing environmental health risks to kids. The program ensures that by 2010, every public school bus in America will be cleaner by encouraging the installation of effective emissions control systems on buses, replacing older buses with newer ones and eliminating unnecessary school bus idling. With community, industry and school district commitments, the program would deliver approximately 150,000 retrofit vehicles in more than 20 school bus programs.

Cutting emissions from nonroad, heavy-duty vehicles: This is construction, agricultural equipment, and industrial equipment. On April 5 of 2003, the EPA, under President Bush, issued a proposed rule that will result in dramatic pollution reductions from nonroad, heavy- duty diesel engines.

The nonroad program will prevent over 9,600 premature deaths, 8,300 hospitalizations, 16,000 heart attacks, 5,700 children's asthma-related emergency room visits, 260,000 respiratory problems in children, and nearly a million workdays due to illnesses.

Cleaner air through smart enforcement: The EPA and the Department of Justice recently settled environmental cases by using smart enforcement and compliance tools to address the most significant problems and achieve the best environmental results. Settlements included: Virginia Electric Power Company, they will spend $1.2 billion to reduce air pollutants, along with $13.9 million to offset the impact of past pollution activities.

The settlement with Archer Daniel Midland, which had quite a bit of public attention, will mean installing and implementing sweeping environmental improvements at their plants nationwide, totaling an estimated $335 million. Also, Archer Daniel Midland will spend $6.3 million on supplemental environmental projects, including retrofitting diesel school buses.

The ALCOA settlement commits them to installing pollution controls and will provide $2.5 million to fund environmental projects, including $1.75 million to the Trust for Public Lands.

Lion Oil Company will spend more than $21.5 million to install state- of-the-art pollution control technologies throughout its refinery. Additionally, the company will pay $348,000 in civil penalties and spend more than $450,000 on supplemental environmental projects.

It goes on and on.

These settlements that took place under the enforcement policies of President Bush far exceed those under the Clinton administration, in both numbers of settlements and the amount of money involved.

On the budget, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget proposal continues significant funding for cleaner air:

$617 million to improve air quality by meeting national ambient air quality standards, reducing air toxics, and acid rain--up $2 million from last year;

$326 million for the Coal Research Initiative on cleaner coal technologies, including $150 million for the President's clean coal power initiative. These funds will support public-private partnerships to research efficient clean coal technologies, which we need and can have and must have to keep America machine ready;

$7 million in new EPA funding for States to conduct air toxics monitoring;

$7.2 billion for mass transit, up $479 million from the previous year.

They are all up from the Clinton administration. People say President Bush doesn't have an environmental administration. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Federal energy score cards: Agencies documented their progress in meeting the various requirements on score cards submitted by the Office of Management and Budget in January 2002. The most relevant findings include: In fiscal year 2001, 10 agencies purchased 632 gigawatt-hours of electricity generated from renewable resources--that is what they are always talking about--which is more than 3 times the amount reported in fiscal year 2000.

In other words, the renewable resources reported by this administration are 3 times the last year of the Clinton administration.

Eleven agencies implemented renewable energy projects during fiscal year 2001, including 60 solar projects, 7 wind projects, and 9 geothermal projects.

In fiscal year 2001, agencies invested more than $130 million of direct expenditures in energy efficiency.

The President's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal continues significant funding for cleaner energy: $7.1 billion in tax incentives over 10 years for investments in energy-efficiency and renewable energy sources, including more than $3 billion for consumers to purchase hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.

A lot of criticism has come to this President, but he will push the fuel cell program because he has a commitment to it.

One hundred fifty million dollars is in the budget for a FreedomCAR research initiative, a new Department of Energy partnership with automakers and researchers, with a long-term vision of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles; $1 million for the Department of Transportation to improve fuel economy standards.

That is $940,000 more than under the Clinton administration.

Cleaner water, protecting water supplies: In response to the terrorist acts of September 11, the Bush administration continues to work with States and local communities to protect America's 168,000 public drinking water systems and 16,000 public waste water systems from terrorist attacks.

You know, in the committee that I chair, Environment and Public Works Committee, we have passed out the nuclear security bill and waste water security, and last Thursday the Chemical Security Act. They will be coming to the floor and they will become a reality.

Under the President's leadership, we are doing our job. We can single out one thing the President has done that nobody else has been able to do, which is in the area of brownfields.

Fulfilling a campaign pledge, President Bush worked with us to enact historic, bipartisan brownfields reform legislation, which he signed on January 11, 2002.

The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act enacted vital reforms that had been widely sought for years, giving States and local governments greater flexibility and resources to turn environmental eyesores into productive community assets. It reformed important elements of the law that had discouraged private investment in cleaning up and redeveloping brownfields.

You have brownfields in every American city. They are in the process of being cleaned up now, thanks to the policy of this President.

This legislation will significantly increase the pace of brownfields cleanups. President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget proposal provides $210.7 million--more than twice the level of funding prior to the passage of this legislation--in support of the brownfields program, $180 million of which is for grants for States, tribes, local communities for cleanup, site assessments, and revolving loan funds.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Trust for Public Land, and others endorsed the administration's brownfields proposal. In fiscal year 2003, the brownfields program has solicited grant applications and is in the process of reviewing more than 1,300 responses. The agency plans to reward these grants by the fall of 2003.

Again, nothing in the previous administration--the Clinton administration--even addressed brownfields. It was all done by this President.

Madam President, it goes on and on. I think the environmental enforcement record has been unprecedented.

The environmental extremists tie enforcement success to the amounts of funds collected, legal actions initiated, and enforcement office staffing positions, and cite a reduction of fines collected, a 40- percent drop in criminal prosecutions, a 25-percent drop in civil cases, and a reduction in enforcement office staff.

The success of the Bush environmental enforcement record can be measured in both the amounts collected in civil penalties and a number of criminal judgments, but also, and more importantly, in smart enforcement achieving actual environmental results through enforcement efforts focusing on significant noncompliers.

The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $503 million for the EPA enforcement office. This is the largest amount ever requested for environment enforcement, and $21 million more funding than fiscal year 2003.

The EPA's 2004 budget proposes an additional 100 positions in the enforcement program above the administration's 2003 request.

So you can see that none of these accusations are true. It reminds me so much of what Hitler did prior to World War II--called the big lie. If you tell a lie and say it with conviction over and over again, sooner or later people will believe it. I think that is what has been happening.

Smart enforcement: Overall, in the last two fiscal years, EPA and the Department of Justice enforcement has obtained $8 billion in environmental remediation, state-of-the-art controls, and safeguards through enforcement of existing laws. This is the best consecutive 2 years of enforcement of any prior administration on record, including the Clinton administration.

In fiscal 2002, the EPA Compliance Assistance Centers provided environmental technical assistance to more than 673,000 businesses and individuals to help them comply with environmental laws.

Fiscal year 2002 saw a 26-percent increase of company self- disclosures of possible environmental violations.

From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001, the EPA and the Department of Justice enforcement nearly doubled the amount spent by violators on pollution controls and cleanups from $2.6 billion to $4.4 billion.

The POPS Program--persistent and organic pollutants--was an agreement the President was able to get. There are seven key types of pollutants under this program. The 12 chemicals in the POPS treaty, including DDT, PCBs, and dioxins, are some of the most persistent and dangerous chemicals ever manufactured. They are known to cause cancer, reproductive disorders, and immune system disruptions in both humans and wildlife. We nearly lost the bald eagle because of one of these chemicals. Because they are so mobile and accumulate in the food chain, absent international action, they will continue to be a risk to all.

This agreement will restrict and eliminate these chemicals, including DDT, PCBs, and dioxins, that are some of the most persistent and dangerous chemicals ever manufactured.

Again, President Bush announced his support for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and legislation has passed the committee. That was never addressed by any previous administration. That is just this administration. Environmental extremists and their liberal friends in the press have you believe this President does not have a good environmental record when he has the best record of any President in history. No President has ever been as good as George W. Bush.

Again, that should not even be a discussion right now, but due to the fact we have the nomination of Mike Leavitt coming up and they refuse to talk about his record and instead talk about the President's record, I thought it was necessary to tell the truth about that record.

It is also interesting, there are six holds--so people understand what we are talking about, a Senator can put a hold on a nomination to keep that person from being confirmed. Of the six holds, four of those people are running for President of the United States. That ought to tell you something about the political motivation.

Madam President, may I inquire as to the time remaining on this side?

I was going to get into another subject, but I have been informed we have two or more speakers coming down who wish to use that 15 minutes. I was going to talk about what we are going to be dealing with this coming Wednesday--this hoax called global warming. I will not do that now, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I would like to inquire as to our time remaining.

Madam President, I will yield our 8 minutes to the distinguished junior Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn, but when Senator Jeffords comes in I am going to ask if we can borrow some of his time because we do have one more speaker.

For right now, if the Senator is prepared, I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

I would like to ask my good friend from Florida: At the very beginning of his remarks, he said the money isn't there. I wanted to make sure he was aware, which I think he is, that the Bush request for 2004 is the second largest request since the date he mentioned being on the floor in 1980. I was not here until 1984. But right now his request is $1.38 billion. I first ask if the Senator is aware of that.

Secondly, as far as the tax is concerned, we have never left the idea of polluter pays. Right now, polluter pays. In 70 percent of the cases, if there is a polluter who can be identified, the polluter pays. The problem you are coming up with, when you talk about the tax--which expired in 1995 under the Clinton administration, and President Clinton did not ask for its reinstatement or for a tax--is that that is not polluter pays. That takes care of some orphan cases, either general funds or that tax.

Is that fair, to have businesses paying into a fund that pays for pollution cleanup that they didn't cause? That is a bad policy to do that. I wanted to be sure we were talking about the same thing.

I appreciate my friend, because he is my friend, yielding further. The point I want to get across is that according to EPA figures--this was true back in the previous administration also--70 percent of those cleanups are paid for by the polluter. It is inaccurate to imply that they are not doing it. When you let a tax expire, as they did in 1995--again, this is not a partisan thing because that happened during the Clinton administration--that is a tax on businesses that has nothing to do with polluters. These are not polluters who are paying this tax. They could be anyone out there. But the fact is that this administration is making the request for $1.38 billion and the fund is there.

You can talk about Florida all you want. I ask my friend from Florida if he is aware that the most devastating Superfund site in America is in my State of Oklahoma. No one else is even close.

No one is more concerned about devastating sites than I am. I would say this. We are going to correct it. We are in the process of cleaning it up. A lot of the funding is not going to be coming from the Superfund that is in place right now. Nonetheless, it is going to be cleared up. The point is this. It was a tax that expired during the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration did

not want to renew it and never made an effort to. This administration has never made an effort to renew it because it is wrong. It is bad public policy to pass a tax for people to pay for pollution cleanups that they didn't cause. It is as simple as that.

I thank the Senator for yielding for questions.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

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

Will the Senator yield further?

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.

If the Senate will yield further?

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. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Utah reserved the right to object. I ask if he is objecting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled cloture vote be vitiated and, further, that at 9:30 tomorrow morning the Senate resume consideration of the Leavitt nomination and there then be 60 minutes equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member or their designees, with 20 minutes of the minority time under the control of Senator Lautenberg. I further ask consent that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no intervening action or debate, provided that following that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

I also ask unanimous consent that this evening at 5:30 the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 424, the nomination of Dale Fischer to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; further, that following that vote the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, in accordance with the UC request, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Utah.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to executive session in consideration of Calendar No. 405, Michael Leavitt, to be Administrator of the EPA; further, that there be then 2 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that following that debate the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no intervening action or debate; I further ask consent that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

It is my intention, Mr. President, to come down here and share something that happened last Tuesday that has never happened before in the history of this institution. I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. We had a confirmation hearing for Governor Leavitt from Utah, a highly qualified nominee by the President to be administrator of the EPA. The Democrats boycotted the meeting. They obstructed the meeting just by boycotting it, not showing up. I am going to be talking later on today about that, but it is my intention now to talk about the subject the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Texas have before us, because it has such great ramifications to our Nation's security.

The whole issue of the $87 billion is so misunderstood by most of the American people, I would like to try to put it in a context that is more understandable. First of all, you are talking about $87 billion, of which $66 billion is going back into the military. Most of that is rebuilding the military for what happened to the military during the 1990s, and to rebuild it, to get us up to be able to meet the challenges that are very serious today. I would like to go into more detail on that, but there is not time in this 5 minutes.

But I would say this, of the $87 billion--and you take away the $66 billion--we are talking about $20 billion, less $5 billion. It is very important we understand this; $5 billion of this will be going toward border security, having nothing to do with rebuilding infrastructure, rebuilding any of the water systems, electrical systems, the highways, the other infrastructure systems we are going to have to get done.

It leaves $15 billion.

The big discussion here is--and I know it sounds good to the American people and it sounds good to my wife--with all of the potential oil revenues, why don't we restructure this as a loan as opposed to a grant? There is very good reason for that.

CSIS has come up with an analysis of the debt that is owed currently by Iraq. It is not just $140 billion or the $200 billion figure you have heard. When you put the claims in there that would have to be subordinate to the $383 billion, if we do restructure this as a loan, it would come in only after $383 billion has been repaid by some source. We all know logically that would never ever happen. But the rewards of expending this $15 billion and doing it quickly, as the President is requesting, are immense. To have a friend in that country of Iraq in the Middle East would have a great benefit for us.

When you stop to think about just the cost of petroleum for the no- fly zone, that amounts to $15 billion each decade. If we don't do this, we are going to be right back in that box where we didn't finish the job we should have finished in 1991 and 1996. Now is the time to finish the job.

I suggest to you that the greatest disservice we could do to our troops on the ground over in Iraq would be to stall this thing, to not get over there and put the necessary money in to fix the infrastructure.

I am not sure how many people in this body know how much our troops are doing. They are actually putting roofs on buildings, they are actually constructing houses, and they are doing things on their own with their own labor. They desperately need to have us come in and make the necessary fixes.

We have had a success story. My gosh, we have had over 5,000 businesses started. The hospitals and clinics are now open. The schools opened 2 days ago, and 56,000 Iraqis are now working in the security control system.

All of this can continue only if we get the $15 billion over there for the reparations and to take care of the infrastructure. If we don't do that, we are leaving our troops out there in a very dangerous situation.

I would like for everyone to remember their history a little bit.

The Treaty of Versailles was in 1919, at the end of World War I. France insisted on leaving $32 billion in debt for the Germans to pay. As a result of being covered up with debt and knowing there was no possible way out, they became ripe for Hitler to come along. And we know the rest of the story.

That is the same situation we are facing in Iraq right now. If we don't come to the table with the $15 billion and get in there and start repairing the infrastructure and continue the success we have had so far, and do it immediately, then we are going to leave our troops hanging out there to dry.

For the sake of national security, the most significant thing we probably will be dealing with--certainly in this year and maybe during our entire careers--is to get the money in there and get the job done, and this time not do what we did in 1991 or 1996 but finish the job and bring this country back up so it can be our ally in the Middle East.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to require parental consent for intrusive physical exams, genital exams, administered under the Head Start program.

Young children attending Head Start programs should not be subjected to these invasive exams without the prior knowledge or consent of their parents. While the Department of Health and Human Services has administered general exam guidelines to agencies, the U.S. Code is not clear about prohibiting them without parental consent. My bill will clarify the Code by not allowing any non-emergency invasive genital exam by a Head Start agency without parental consent.

As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital for parents to be informed about what is happening to their children in the classroom. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to require parental consent for intrusive physical exams, genital exams, administered under the Head Start program.

Young children attending Head Start programs should not be subjected to these invasive exams without the prior knowledge or consent of their parents. While the Department of Health and Human Services has administered general exam guidelines to agencies, the U.S. Code is not clear about prohibiting them without parental consent. My bill will clarify the Code by not allowing any non-emergency invasive genital exam by a Head Start agency without parental consent.

As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital for parents to be informed about what is happening to their children in the classroom. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important bill.

Mr. President, I don't think there is any doubt but Ronald White is one of the most qualified nominees that we have been able to act on and confirm.

In addition to that, he comes from my hometown of Tulsa. I know him well and I know what he does. This is a generous person. He is famous for taking indigent cases and not charging fees.

The Margaret Hudson Program is a program to give alternatives to pregnant teens, and he gives his free legal counsel to that.

He is the type of person certainly deserving from his own personal lifestyle as well as his professional qualifications.

I heartily endorse him.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing this bill to reauthorize the Adoption Incentives Program.

The Adoption Incentives Program was created in 1997 as a part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act to encourage and expedite adoptions for children in foster care.

Under the current program, States are given incentive payments for increased adoptions of all foster children, as well as for adoptions of children with special needs. This reauthorization bill will continue that program, while offering new, targeted incentives for adoptions of older children.

There is an overwhelming need for adoption of foster children. Over 550,000 children are currently languishing in foster care in the United States. Of this number, more than 165,000 are children who will never be adopted.

Only half of the children in foster care graduate from high school and only 11 percent of that number go to college. Within 1 year of leaving foster care, 49 percent of these young people are unemployed and within 3 years of leaving foster care, up to 45 percent have been arrested and almost 75 percent have been arrested at least once.

Providing these children with a permanent, stable family helps them become successful, contributing members of society. I am proud to lend my support to this important legislation that will help give these young people a home.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing this bill to reauthorize the Adoption Incentives Program.

The Adoption Incentives Program was created in 1997 as a part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act to encourage and expedite adoptions for children in foster care.

Under the current program, States are given incentive payments for increased adoptions of all foster children, as well as for adoptions of children with special needs. This reauthorization bill will continue that program, while offering new, targeted incentives for adoptions of older children.

There is an overwhelming need for adoption of foster children. Over 550,000 children are currently languishing in foster care in the United States. Of this number, more than 165,000 are children who will never be adopted.

Only half of the children in foster care graduate from high school and only 11 percent of that number go to college. Within 1 year of leaving foster care, 49 percent of these young people are unemployed and within 3 years of leaving foster care, up to 45 percent have been arrested and almost 75 percent have been arrested at least once.

Providing these children with a permanent, stable family helps them become successful, contributing members of society. I am proud to lend my support to this important legislation that will help give these young people a home.

Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3087, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003, which extends the expiring Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century for an additional 5 months.

As my colleagues are aware, we are just days from the expiration of TEA-21. We continue to make progress in our negotiations on a comprehensive 6-year bill, but we need more time. Earlier this year, 79 Senators voted for the Bond-Reid amendment to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution which stated clearly that the Senate wanted the funding for a 6-year highway bill at $255 billion.

I believe $255 billion is a reasonable and responsible level given the pressing transportation infrastructure needs that are out there. Now the challenge is to get to that level. My colleagues on the Committee on Environment and Public Works and I have been working closely with Senators Grassley and Baucus to find the money. In the meantime, we have to address the imminent expiration of TEA-21.

H.R. 3087 provides 5 months worth of the $35.5 billion allowed under the budget resolution of $14.8 billion and a corresponding amount of obligation limitation. This is a significant, 7 percent increase in highway funding over 2003. This additional $2.2 billion in highway funding will translate into over 100,000 new jobs.

Of course, the best thing we can do to create economic opportunity is enact a comprehensive, 6-year reauthorization. As we all know, highway bills are job bills. A highway bill drafted at $255 billion over 6 years will create about 2 million new American jobs. This combined with the tax cuts signed by President Bush is the best stimulus the economy can receive.

Let me be very clear that my preference is that we would be considering a 6-year comprehensive bill today, not a 5-month extension, but reality is that the funding needed to do a comprehensive 6-year bill at $255 billion has not yet been identified. Because of that, I believe the best outcome for the long-term is to do a 5-year month extension and continue to work on a comprehensive 6-year bill.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3087.

Mr. President, I want my colleagues from Michigan, Ohio, and the many other donor States to know that I am committed to improving the return to donor States. It is my intention that any comprehensive 6-year reauthorization bill considered by the Senate include a provision that guarantees all donor States get to a 95 percent minimum rate of return at the end of the life of the bill without harming the opportunity for all States to grow. However, Members need to understand that this is only possible if we are able to fund the bill at $255 billion which means we must identify additional revenue.

I also want to further assure my donor State colleagues that the next highway bill I plan to mark up is a 6-year bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.