Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Utah. I was trying to get across with just a prelude, if you will accept that. There are several of us here who are not attorneys and who are certainly not great legal minds. As we look at this, I recall, though, another hearing, the origin of filibuster dealing back with the days of civil rights. And what comes to my mind is, as I have been listening to these questions being asked and the objections to Miguel Estrada by the minority--correct me if I am wrong--that the filibuster was created and maintained for some civil rights legislation in the first place. Is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator share with those of us who are not attorneys the origin for filibuster?

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. INHOFE. Will my colleague yield?

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

Mr. INHOFE. It is a sincere last question. It is very important because I just got a phone call that I am going to be asked a question. First of all, I want to inform the Senator from Utah that in Oklahoma, our fastest growing population has been Hispanic for 25 years. I used to be a commercial pilot in Mexico. I know Hispanics. When I was the mayor of Tulsa, we appointed the first Hispanic commission anywhere in the Southwest. It is still there today. Now, the question is this, and I am going to be asked this question this weekend: Why was this Hispanic man, when nobody could question his qualifications, rejected? I have to answer this to the Hispanic commission of Oklahoma Saturday. What shall I say?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in accordance with the rule XXVI (2) of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the rules of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, adopted by the committee today, January 29, 2003, be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. We are in the process of making some major changes. You heard from the Senator from Idaho the improvements that have been made there. And this is one of the main agenda items. So I urge the defeat of the Lautenberg amendment and yield to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Idaho because we do have two of those devastating sites. I yield whatever time I have to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. INHOFE. One minute to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenberg amendment. I look over and see both Senators from Louisiana here. I can assure you that money is not just the answer. I remember at Bossier City there was a site that the Federal Government was going to clean up. It was going to cost X dollars. I don't remember the exact amount, but I didn't know this amendment was going to come up. After we spent quite a bit of time, we found that the responsible parties were willing to do it under State supervision. All of the parishes agreed to it. All of the citizens, neighborhood groups, agreed to it. Yet they were still going to do it. We ended up forcing this through and cleaning it up for one-half the amount of money and in one-half of the time. We need to reform the Superfund system. I would argue with my good friend from Idaho, I think we have the largest Superfund problem in Tar Creek in the State of Oklahoma. I will not yield to my friend because I think I need my time. But I would say this: We have spent about $100 million on it over the last 15 years, and it has not resolved the problem. We want to reform the system. We need to reform the system. And, of course, there are no offsets. So I know that will mean something to some of the people. But let's go ahead, give our committee a chance, give Senator Chafee, whose subcommittee has the jurisdiction, a chance to go in here and do a better job rather than pouring money on a system that is not working today. Now I will yield----

Mr. INHOFE. Sure.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have to argue with my good friend from New Jersey. If he wants to use the Superfund Program as an example of a program that has been working, then we don't have any problems around here because it hasn't been working. We have been working on making major changes. We are going to make major changes. I yield back the time and move to table the Lautenberg amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time does the Senator from New Jersey have remaining?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. The Environment and Public Works Committee has had Price- Anderson reauthorization bills referred to it in three consecutive Congresses now--my bill, S. 2292, in the 106th Congress as well as Senator Voinovich's bills, S. 1591 and S. 1360 from the 107th Congress and S. 156 in this 108th Congress. I laud Senator Voinovich's diligent and effective work on this legislation. I would also like to thank Environmental and Public Works Committee staff and associated staff who have worked on this legislation, especially Andrew Wheeler, Lewis Renjel, Marty Hall, Brian Mormino, and Aloysius Hogan. It is quite appropriate that the passage of this legislation be one of the first actions of the new Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, I had scheduled the passage of Senator Voinovich's bill S. 156 for my first Environment and Public Works Committee mark-up as Chairman in this 108th Congress. Moreover, in the Environment and Public Works Committee I look forward to further productive oversight and legislation regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, control of nuclear energy, infrastructure, and continued environmental enhancement for our flora, fauna, air, water, and soil. I support the opportunity to enact this legislation promptly on this omnibus appropriations bill in lieu of Environment and Public Works Committee action. By fostering the clean-up of our soil and water and by fostering clean air energy sources, the legislation we pass in this bill is good for our environment. The sooner we enact this legislation, the better for our environment.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. We reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time remains for both sides?

Mr. INHOFE. First, let me comment that this amendment enjoys the embrace and the support of virtually every organization of business or labor unions in America. It was unanimously approved by the National Governors Association, the Environmental Council of the States, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, et cetera, and virtually every labor union in America. At this time I recognize the chairman of the clean air subcommittee, the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, to clear up a couple things, first, this does not apply to coal-fired plants. The Senator from North Carolina has been talking about that. I have a letter from the administrator saying that. Second, this is not something that came out of the Bush administration. It is something that came out of the Clinton administration. In listening to some of the comments made by some of the Senators on the other side, I think they have lost sight of that fact. Third, it is hard to find anyone who is not supporting this. People want these plants to be able to go ahead, make the improvements, clean up the air, and do a better job for the environment. We have the National Conference of State Legislators, Governors, the environmental councils of the States, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, virtually every labor union; they are all listed. The list is on the desks. I would encourage Members not to delay this effort. All this amendment would do is delay it for 6 more months. It has already been delayed for 10 years. It is time to go ahead. I urge Members to vote against the amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me acknowledge this is a little different than it was yesterday. Yesterday, it was a second-degree amendment. To accommodate both sides, we will have two first-degree amendments that we will consider today. Our leader talked about the unfinished business from last year. This first amendment falls into that category. It actually was unfinished business from the Clinton administration. I have a letter from Bob Perciasepe, the clean air man, director for the Clinton administration, saying at the last minute they were unable to get this completed. What we are trying to do now is to complete this effort. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time so we can hear from the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me make one point. The analysis that was referred to by the Senator from Vermont as not being complete is right here. It is 180 pages of analysis of all data that was available. If they were to try to have the NAS do a further analysis, they would have to go back and use this same data. This job has been done. This has been delayed now for 10 years. At this point I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I very much look forward to seeing the fruits of the Clinton and Bush administrations' labors on this issue. From my tenure as chairman of the Senate's Clean Air Subcommittee, I knew that New Source Review was a major issue for the energy sector. In fact, I held the very first congressional hearings on New Source Review in February of 2000 in Ohio. I could not believe my own ears. We heard from companies that were trying to make environmentally friendly modifications to their facilities being stopped dead in their tracks by, ironically, the Clean Air Act. I was also shocked to hear that it took 4,000 pages of guidance documents to explain 20 pages of regulations. That is 4,000 pages of guidance documents just to explain 20 pages of regulations. Since then, my shock at the absurdity of the NSR Program has not worn off. We, as a nation, need to rethink the manner in which we approach regulations. We all need to keep an open mind during the debates on various regulatory reform initiatives. I am sick of continually hearing that these are ``sneak attacks on the environment.'' In fact, just the opposite is true. If we rethink regulation, we could find ourselves in a place where we can have far greater environmental protection and more reliable and diverse energy sources. Congress and the executive branch must also do a better job of understanding how the various layers of regulations impact sectors of our economy. I normally have a chart which shows all of the different regulations that are going to be hitting the various regulated sectors--a chart that shows the refiners that are currently working at almost 100-percent capacity are going to be simultaneously hit with a number of regulations in the next few years. NSR will make it close to impossible for refiners to make these environmental upgrades. Now is the time to work together on these and other regulations to not only achieve the environmental goals but also ensure no disruption in fuel supply which would cause the price spikes that we know are inevitable. Higher energy prices affect everyone. However, when the price of energy rises, that means the less fortunate in our society must make a decision between heating their home and keeping the lights on or paying for other essential needs. During a recent EPW Committee hearing last year, Senator Voinovich's constituent, Tom Mullen, articulated this concern. Mr. Mullen stated that in a recent study--which is well known and very well expected--on Public Opinion on Poverty, it was reported that 23 percent of the people in America have difficulty paying for their utilities. That is one out of every four Americans. I will not support policies, such as NSR, that will hurt the poor in Oklahoma and around the Nation. Additionally, the lower environmental performance resulting from the current NSR Program impacts Americans in every tax bracket. NSR reforms enjoy the support of a wide range of interests--from the State attorneys general to labor unions to business groups. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers in support of NSR reform.

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

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I thank the Senator from Ohio for the time he has spent in setting out this issue. Not many people are aware of the fact that Senator Voinovich was the head of the National Governors Association Clean Air Committee and has been working on it for a long time. I only add to his comments and ask him if he is in agreement that we have 180 pages here, and almost all of this was done during the Clinton administration. All the data that would be available for the NAS is found in the results that are very positive in this report. So I certainly hope this is an accommodating way for the Senator from North Carolina to say, yes, we want the input of the NAS; we don't want to wait 6 more months.