Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. 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.

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

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

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

Mr. INHOFE. 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.

Mr. INHOFE. 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.

Mr. INHOFE. 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?

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

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

Mr. INHOFE. May I interrupt for a question?

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

Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I had a hard time figuring out whom the distinguished Senator from New Jersey was talking about. Let me just outline how this side is going to use its 30 minutes. I have a few comments to make, and I may respond to some of the things the Senator said about Governor Leavitt. I understand Senator Bond wants to come down and have about 5 minutes. I ask if Senator Jeffords would mind if Senator Hatch could have our last 10 minutes because he was not able to spend as much time in the Chamber yesterday in order to respond to anything else that has been said about Governor Leavitt.

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you very much. I appreciate the cooperation we have had. First of all, as far as the comments the Senator from New Jersey made about Governor Leavitt are concerned, talking about the Legacy Parkway, let me just mention to him that the construction on the highway began only after Utah had the legal authorization to do so from the various States and the Federal agencies. The 2,000 acres of wetlands would be protected as a nature preserve. But I think the most significant point, since he is criticizing the administration along with Governor Leavitt, is that all required Federal approvals for the Legacy Parkway project were issued by the Clinton administration after 6 years of study, public comment, and legal review. That was the Clinton administration. Secondly, on the water quality report, first of all, the report they are quoting is from PIRG, which is another environmental extremist group. It is not part of the Federal Government. The truth is, the PIRG report relied on incomplete data to reach the findings for Utah. When the Utah data was corrected, Utah showed one of the lowest Clean Water Act noncompliance rates in the country. For example, between January of 2000 and March of 2001, Utah's noncompliance rate placed Utah among the top 10 States with the lowest rates of noncompliance. Right now, 73 percent of the streams in Utah meet all Federal and State requirements. That is a 24-percent improvement over the time since Governor Leavitt took office. It is one of his greatest accomplishments, and here he is being criticized for it. I have to go back and reread--I wish there were more time to do it. I certainly appreciate Senator Jeffords' comments when he said--and this is a quote-- First of all, it has nothing to do with the qualifications of Mr. Leavitt. I will vote for him and I am hopeful that at some point I will be able to do so. I look forward to that. I consider him a friend. I have worked with him in the past on [various matters]. Gov. Bill Richardson, a Governor with Governor Leavitt, said: He has worked effectively with other Governors regardless of party. Obviously the same willingness and ability to work collaboratively with other elected and appointed environmental officials is crucial to the effectiveness of any EPA Administrator. Mike Leavitt is a consensus builder and can bring people together. That is Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, one of his biggest fans. We have talked over and over about the accomplishments of Governor Leavitt. He was the chairman of the National Governors Association. He is chairman of the Republican Governors Association, chairman of the Western Governors Association. Under his leadership, the visibility in the West has improved. There have been accolades all over the country on the job he has done as the cochairman of the Western Regional Air Partnership cleaning up the air. During his 11-year term, we already mentioned 73 percent of Utah streams currently meet all water quality standards compared to 59 percent 10 years ago. And it has all happened since Governor Leavitt took office. I do not understand at this late hour that finally someone is coming and criticizing him. I have been critical of the debate so far because they have not really talked about Governor Leavitt, except in praising him, but they have talked about misrepresenting the Bush administration's environmental progress. Now, I think something has to be said that, prior to his markup, committee Democrats submitted 400 questions to Governor Leavitt. And if you compare that to other administrations, when Carol Browner was up in 1993--remember that--she had only 67 questions that came from Republicans--not 400; 67. And, of course, for William Reilly there were just a handful of questions at that time. Also, going back to the number of days it took between the nomination and actually becoming the Administrator, for William Reilly it was just 13 days; for Carol Browner, just 11 days; and for Governor Whitman, it was 13 days. Now, this has taken 55 days. And when Senator Lautenberg, a few minutes ago, said he has not had time to look at it, my gosh, if he did not need any more than 10 or 13 days for the others, what is wrong with having 55 days? It is certainly more than enough time. We desperately need to have this man in this office. For weeks we have heard nothing about Mike Leavitt and everything about President Bush, and yet I would like to suggest to you that President Bush's record and accomplishments are second to none. Let me quote Greg Easterbrook from an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. He is the senior editor of the very liberal New Republic. He doesn't say many good things about Republicans. He is a Democrat. He is very sympathetic to their causes. He says most of the charges made against the White House are ``baloney,'' made for ``purposes of partisan political bashing and fund-raising.'' He also contends that ``environmental lobbies raise money better in an atmosphere of panic and so they are exaggerating the case against Bush.'' In his view, President Bush's new rules for diesel engines and diesel fuel ``should lead to the biggest pollution reduction since the 1991 Clean Air Act amendment.'' Last night I went over all of the accomplishments of the Bush administration. The fact that the Clear Skies legislation is coming up and is going to be the largest mandated reduction in pollutants of any President in history, a 70-percent reduction in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide and mercury. On cleaner fuels and engines, there is the diesel rule. I am prepared to talk about these. At this point I yield to the minority side for any comments they want to make because, quite frankly, I want to be in a position to respond. I appreciate Senator Jeffords allowing the senior Senator from Utah to have the last 10 minutes of our time. We will wait for other Members to arrive. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Let me take a minute or two, and then I will yield to Senator Bond. First of all, the Senator from California was talking about the dismal record in Superfund of this administration, and the fact that not enough money has been spent. I want to suggest that there is no correlation between the money raised when they had the tax and the money spent on Superfund cleanups. In 1996, during the Clinton administration, the tax fund was at its highest level. Yet money spent by the Clinton administration for cleanup was near a 10-year low. To contrast that, in President Bush's 2004 budget, the money for actual cleanup is near a 10-year high, while the fund is at a low point. In fact, the 2004 request of the President is $1.38 billion, which is higher than 7 of the 8 years of the Clinton administration. So I don't think there is anything to that particular argument. I also remind the Senator of this: When she talked about people praising the President for his environmental record, many of these people praising the President are not Republicans, they are not pundits. These are Democrats and liberals, who are giving him credit, such as Gregg Easterbrook, senior editor of the liberal New Republic magazine, as I have mentioned. At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first let me say to my friend from Vermont that is an excellent statement, and I share his view on the qualifications of our nominee. I look forward to his becoming a historic Administrator of the EPA. I would like to yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes so that I can ensure the senior Senator from Utah has the final 10 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me just mention a few things. It seems as if we really do not need to talk about Governor Leavitt. I agree with the praises that many people have made of him. I believe that he is probably the best, most qualified nominee we have ever had, but let me take this time to mention some other things. I already talked about the record, about the Clear Skies legislation mandating a 70-percent reduction in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. No President in history has ever mandated that. I look forward to getting to the Clear Skies legislation. As to cleaner fuels and engines, the diesel rule has been applauded all around for the amount of reduction it will bring. The rule requiring new heavy-duty trucks and buses to run cleaner will cut harmful pollutants by 95 percent. That is a huge amount. Also, in terms of enforcement, I talked about these in more detail last night, but the President has done more in terms of settlements. Just in this short period of time he has been President we have had settlements with Virginia Electric Power, and they are going to spend $1.2 billion to reduce pollutants. The Archer Daniel Midland settlement has taken place under this administration. It is going to total $335 million that will go toward cleaning up the environment; Alcoa, $2.5 million to fund environmental projects; Lion Oil Company will spend $2.5 million to install state-of-the-art pollution control technologies throughout its refinery; and the settlement with Toyota, the same thing, $34 million. These are all settlements in the Bush administration. They were not settled during the Clinton administration. So he has that record, and it is a record that is better than any previous administration. In terms of his budget proposal, I think the Senator from Missouri covered that very well. In cleaner water, we have legislation right now in the committee that I chair, and with the cooperation of Senator Jeffords, we have now passed out a nuclear security bill, waste water security bill, and a chemical security bill. Hopefully, they will be taken up and passed before long. As far as this administration, on brownfields, nobody has been able to hold a candle to what President Bush and his administration have done in brownfields. I am very sensitive to this because I had an amendment on the brownfields bill that would include petroleum sites, some 200,000 petroleum sites, and that has been used as an example for the greatest single area of accomplishment, in terms of cleaning up these sites. We are talking about 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.

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

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

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