Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this debate is winding down and my colleagues are here to offer other amendments. I am going to finish shortly. At this point in the debate, we ought to get real about what this is. There are certain matters that are right in society and there are certain matters that are wrong. It is not right to give special protection to one particular manufacturing group in this country that no one else gets. In a way, it is a subsidy given to those people because if there is a problem in the future with ethanol, guess who is going to pick up the tab? Guess who is going to pay the bill? Not the people who caused the problem but the taxpayers. That is wrong. If we had a wonderful history, if we did not have communities in trouble because of MTBE and other additives we thought would be great, it would be different. I see my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, is in the Chamber for another amendment. The Citizens for a Future New Hampshire support the Boxer amendment because they do not want to be left holding the bag if something happens. There is right and there is wrong. This issue, to me, is very clear: It is right to protect the people; it is wrong to give a special interest waiver to a particular manufacturer. There is private special interest and there is public interest-- taxpayers versus those who would pollute. Finally, when my colleagues say they are only banning one type of option for citizens who are injured, namely effective product liability, that is all they are doing. People can still use the nuisance claim and the negligence claim and all of these other claims. I hope they know they are forgetting recent history where there was a court case on MTBE, also an additive to gasoline, and what did the court say? The nuisance claim, denied; the negligence claim, denied. The only claim that could hold up, the only claim that could save the taxpayers of Lake Tahoe, who had a mess with MTBE, was defective product liability. My colleagues stand up and say that is the only thing we are doing. They called it a narrow safe harbor. Well, it is an enormous safe harbor because it is the only place people can go to get recompense if ethanol turns out to be a problem. My colleague from Missouri says there is a study in this underlying bill. Well, I am glad there is a study, but he is ignoring the fact that there has already been a study in 1999 by EPA's blue ribbon panel, and this is what they said: Ethanol is extremely soluble in water and would spread if leaked into the environment. It may further spread plumes of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and ethanol may inhibit the breakdown of these toxic materials. It says it may inhibit. That means it may be a problem. If my colleagues, in their zeal to have ethanol in every single State in this country--and, by the way, it will be--and if they are so sure it is safe, then why on Earth are they saying ethanol should get special treatment, and why do they close down the door on the only area where people have found they have a chance to get cleanup money from the polluters? The answer is, they do not know if it is safe. We hope it is safe. We hoped MTBE would be safe, and it has poisoned hundreds of wells in this country. Hundreds of water systems have shut down because of MTBE. And if it was not for the product liability claim being open to citizens, who would have to clean up the mess? Not the companies that caused it but the taxpayers in those areas. So it seems to me, if I might use the word ``disingenuous,'' to say that ethanol is 100 percent safe, but we want a safe harbor so no one can sue if something goes wrong. I was not born yesterday. That is obvious. I know when somebody says they have the safest product in the world but give me special protection so that no one can ever sue me, my antenna goes up, just as a person with common sense, and I say that is not right. Researchers say that more ground water wells will experience contamination from MTBE and benzene, which is a carcinogen, if ethanol leaks into water supply, and there are the questions about the impact of ethanol on sensitive populations, our children. Now, there is not one Senator who does not want to protect kids. Come on. We know that. Most of us are parents. A lot of us are grandparents. We are aunts, we are uncles. We want to protect our children and we want to protect the Nation's children. How can we close our eyes, then, to what we are about to do if we do not agree to this Boxer amendment? What we are doing is saying that the makers of this product do not have to worry about a thing in terms of harming our kids. Our kids, because of the developmental stage they are in--they are growing, they are changing, their hormones are starting--they are very sensitive to contaminants. We know that. That is why I wrote the Children's Environmental Protection Act, and parts of it have been passed by the Senate. I am so proud of it. Is it not better to say up front to a manufacturer--any manufacturer--if they harm children, we can take them to court and they are going to have to clean up the mess and clean up their product? Oh, no, not if they are making ethanol. They are going to have special exemption. It breaks my heart to see us do this. I figure I will lose this amendment only because we tried it once before and we did lose it.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute, to close.

Mrs. BOXER. So there are unanswered questions surrounding ethanol. There are unanswered questions according to the EPA special panel in 1999, and all the Senator from California is saying to her colleagues is this: Just make sure this product, which is going to be a new product in several States, that it does not have special advantages so that if something happens, the makers of the product do not get off scott-free. That is not right. It is un-American. It is not fair. It is an unfunded mandate on our communities. I was happy to hear Senator Bond say he does not support a waiver for MTBE--good for him--because we need to strip that out of the House bill. But this is a new day. This is a new additive, and we should hold it to the same responsibility as we hold all other additives, all other products. Because if MTBE had this waiver, communities all over this country would be in trouble. I thank my colleagues very much for listening to me. I feel very strongly about this. I hope we will have a good ``aye'' vote. I ask for the yeas and nays, and also ask the amendment be set aside for a vote at a later time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in 90 seconds I want to tell you why this amendment is so important. I offer it on behalf of myself and Senator Durbin, a strong supporter of ethanol, Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Clinton, Jeffords, and Lautenberg. My amendment simply removes the safe harbor provision in the bill, which treats ethanol like no other fuel, giving consumers and communities no legal recourse if it turns out that the water is polluted or the air is polluted or people get sick from this increased amount of ethanol. Believe me, I hope ethanol is totally safe. But no one is sure. Just read the 1999 blue ribbon EPA panel. They raise some serious questions. Of course, the ethanol manufacturers say ethanol is 100 percent completely safe. Then I ask why they demand this safe harbor provision. Look at what happened to the last gasoline additive we promoted, MTBE. This is the cost to our people because of MTBE pollution: $29 billion. My friends, if we had had the same safe harbor for MTBE as some of us are seeking for ethanol, this would not have fallen completely on your taxpayers and your communities. I call this an unfunded mandate. People who oppose this say they only are putting forward a very narrow safe harbor. They say everyone will have a lot of ways to go. But the truth is that defective product liability is the only remedy. The courts have said no to negligence and no to nuisance. The only claim they have is defective product liability. All we do is say treat ethanol as we do any other additive. I urge an aye vote.

Mrs. BOXER. I see the Democratic leader is on the Senate floor. It would be a wonderful thing if he could speak out on this amendment as well. We have both Senators from New Mexico, and Senator Lugar. I am trying not to put the Senate through a rollcall vote. If I have these strong commitments, it will make me feel a lot better about it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. And my other friend, my ranking member, has made the same pledge?

Mrs. BOXER. Meaning you will not drop it in conference, which is what you told me?

Mrs. BOXER. You will do your very best?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I cannot thank enough both of my colleagues, my friends, from New Mexico, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman. I want to make sure Senators understand exactly what we do. We increase the credit to 2.5 gallons if the ethanol is made from agricultural residue. It is giving an incentive to our farmers who produce rice, wheat, barley, oats, sugar beets, and others, an incentive to use the waste. I was going to have a rollcall vote on this, but given the assurances of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, who have stated very clearly and have told me they will not drop this amendment in conference--can I rely on that commitment? I ask both my friends one more time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very delighted to offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Lugar, and Senator Cantwell. I think it is quite a pro-ethanol amendment because what we are trying to do here is encourage the development of ethanol that is produced from agricultural residues. This amendment will, in fact, promote the production of agricultural residue ethanol. I want to tell my colleagues why this is important. I believe that biomass ethanol derived from agricultural residue could be a significant source of ethanol in California and also throughout the United States. Every State has agricultural waste, including those producing corn. I hope my colleagues who have the production of corn, wheat, sugarcane, rice, barley, beets, or oats in their States will realize this amendment is very important to them. I also believe the use of agricultural residue ethanol will make it easier for many of our States--certainly for California--to meet an ethanol mandate without price spikes and gasoline shortages as it increases the flexibility that the country has to meet this mandate. What is agricultural residue ethanol? I am sure if people are watching, they are thinking: This cannot be interesting. To me, it is very interesting because it is fuel made from the fibrous portion of plants, as is ethanol, but it differs from conventional ethanol in the following significant ways. First, the manufacturing process does not consume fossil fuels but rather uses plant byproducts and waste to create the energy to run the process. So, in a time in our history when we are trying to lessen our dependence on fossil fuel, I think this amendment is quite an important statement for us to make. I am very proud that Senator Lugar agrees because he is someone with much experience in this area. Second, the raw material does not compete as a food source for humans and is available today based on existing farm practices. Third, it uses existing waste products, thus decreasing disposal needs. Ethanol made from agricultural residue, such as rice, wheat straw, and sugarcane waste, can be locally produced and does not require that corn and other commodities be grown just to make ethanol. What we are talking about is using the residue, not growing food just to produce ethanol at a time when we are throwing food away because we have an overabundance in many of these areas. And, then we have been very energy inefficient by using the fossil fuel to develop the ethanol. What we are saying is the waste of agricultural materials is going to be put to good use. Is this a pie-in-the-sky idea? No, it is not. In 1999, Sacramento Valley produced enough rice straw waste--500,000 tons of which is burned in the field--to produce 100 million gallons of agricultural residue ethanol. By putting these agricultural wastes to good use, converting them into energy resources, agricultural ethanol residue production reduces landfill disposal and open-air burning. We are using the waste we otherwise would dispose of either by burning, which dirties the air, or throwing it into a landfill. This will improve air quality and water quality. Further, agricultural residue ethanol reduces greenhouse gases by more than 90 percent compared to gasoline. I reiterate, agricultural residue ethanol reduces greenhouse gases by more than 90 percent compared to gasoline. And it also creates markets for unused agricultural products that are generally expensive to dispose of. Agricultural residue ethanol can give our farmers and our rural communities enhanced economic security. We clearly know that as a new technology, agricultural residue ethanol faces an uphill struggle to break into the ethanol market. Right now we know, when we look at the marketplace, that there is much room to grow here if we look at the numbers. We only have a very small number of gallons that are being derived from anything other than corn. So we have a chance. This, again, is not a pie-in-the-sky idea. Currently, the only commercial facility is the Iogen facility in Canada which converts wheat straw into fermentable sugar and the sugar into bioethanol. Iogen Corporation's goal is to produce 180,000 gallons of ethanol annually. I believe we should promote these types of facilities in the United States of America. Our amendment, I believe, will ensure this. We provide in our amendment more incentives for this type of agricultural residue ethanol production in the United States of America. As this mandate hits my State of California, and other States, where they have to spend a lot of money to bring that ethanol into to the State, it is going to be very cost competitive to import this type of ethanol from Canada. Why do we want to do that when we have the ability, if we have wheat, corn, beets, oats, barley, or rice, to name a few? We can do this in our country, and we can have a whole new industry. We can make ethanol more affordable to those of us who live in States far away from the Midwest. In the underlying bill, there is a 1.5-gallon credit for numerous types of biomass ethanol. This means that a gallon of biomass ethanol counts as 1.5 gallons in meeting the bill's mandate. So there is a little incentive to use biomass ethanol, and I am very proud of that because we worked hard on that issue in our committee. What we want to do, it seems to me, is increase that credit to 2.5 gallons if the ethanol is made from agricultural residues. The fact is that agricultural residues provide us with an amazing opportunity and a promising opportunity to produce ethanol that has the potential of providing many economic and environmental benefits. We are very pleased to offer this amendment. Right now, up to this point, we have seen amendments that people have viewed as anti-ethanol. This is an amendment that should bring us together. It should unite us because there are so many other crops that could be used--and, by the way, are going to be used--but we want to incentivize those agricultural crops. That is what our amendment does. Senator Lugar, Senator Cantwell, and I are very pleased to offer this amendment. We are very hopeful it will be adopted. We are very hopeful we will not have opposition. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor. I also suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daschle. I know he is working endless hours to get this amendment finished. I think this enhances the amendment, I really do. I am very grateful. Before I ask for a voice vote, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to say that the Boxer-Lugar- Cantwell amendment, which encourages production of agricultural residue ethanol, is going to be accepted by a voice vote with a promise to fight for it in conference. Our amendment says that if you produce ethanol from the residue of agricultural crops, you get a special incentive. So if your State grows corn, rice, sugar, apples, wheat, oats, barley, and other crops high in fructose, this amendment would help your farmers, your rural communities, and your States meet the ethanol mandate. Again, it simply gives an incentive to produce ethanol from agricultural residue. I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for accepting the amendment. I am happy to take it by voice vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senate is still not in order. It is a complicated amendment. I would like to be able to explain it.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent at this point.

Mrs. BOXER. That is fine. I say to my friend, could I have 1 minute at that point, and a minute on the other side, to explain the amendment?

Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: May I ask the managers of the bill approximately what time they expect to be voting on the Boxer amendment?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to yield a couple of minutes to my friend from New Mexico. Before I do, I wish to point out that I consider this an ethanol-friendly amendment because I believe there will be much more confidence in ethanol as an additive to our gasoline if people know there are no special waivers of liability, that this fuel will have to be subjected to the same rigorous standards in a court of law should something go wrong. I do not envision this as an unfriendly amendment, although I know some of my colleagues feel otherwise. It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. I will take another couple minutes. Then I will reserve the remainder and allow my colleagues to argue this case. Let me tell you who is on my side. Who is on the side of making sure that we don't give the safe harbor liability waiver for renewable fuels? Many local and State governments, water utilities support my amendment, public health, consumer and environmental organizations. These include the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; the American Water Works Association, which together represent water systems serving 180 million Americans across the country. Do you know why they are with me on this? They may be stuck cleaning up the water supply. They can't afford it. This is almost like putting an unfunded mandate on local people if, in fact, there are problems with ethanol. And that is why the American Water Works Association is for my amendment. Continuing the list of those who oppose the liability waiver: Association of California Water Agencies; National Association of Water Companies; South Tahoe Public Utility District. Do you know why they are for it? Because they know if they didn't have the chance to sue on this, they would have to bear the cleanup responsibility from MTBE contamination. The City of Santa Monica and Orange County Water District likewise know the effect that ground water contamination can have. They are with me. How about these groups? American Lung Association is for the amendment; American Public Health Association; California Clean Water Action; Citizens for a Future New Hampshire, Cahaba River Society; Citizen's Environmental Coalition; Clean Water Action; the Consumer Federation of America; Environmental Defense; Ecology Center; Environmental Working Group; Friends of the Earth; League of Conservation Voters; Mono Lake Committee; National Sludge Alliance; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the New Jersey Coalition Against Tonics; the New Jersey Environmental Federation; Physicians for Social Responsibility; the Sierra Club; Rivers Unlimited; Spring Lake Park Groundwater Guardians; and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. That is just a partial list of the folks out there who are saying to Senators: Please, if you are going to move ahead with a new product like this--it is not a new product, but it is certainly going to be a product that is going to now be ubiquitous across the country--if you are going to do this, then make sure you take every caution and every protection not to waive the protections the American people now have from a defective product. And, once more, just let's be clear on this. There are no other ways for communities to recover costs if this turns out to be a mistake. Negligence, out the window; nuisance, out the window. It is defective product liability the courts have said is the only way people can go. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention the exemplary achievements and outstanding service of Officer Michael Siebert of the San Francisco Police Department. The American Legion, Department of California has chosen Officer Michael Siebert as its Law Enforcement Officer of the Year. Officer Siebert is receiving this award for his dedication to the betterment of his community and to law enforcement. Officer Michael Siebert has dedicated himself to raising funds for children with catastrophic childhood diseases. In 1998, Officer Siebert volunteered to travel to Sydney, Australia, to take part in its ``Crop- A-Cop'' fundraising event. This event featured officers who raise charity funds earmarked for children with cancer. As part of the event, officers would shave their heads to demonstrate to children going through the horrors of chemotherapy that it was okay to have no hair. Not only did Officer Siebert shave his head, but he also returned to ``Crop-A-Cop'' in Australia the following year. Through his efforts, in 1999, this event debuted in the United States. Not only did he succeed in having the San Francisco Police Department and the Sheriff's Department participate, but Officer Siebert enlisted agencies all over the State of California to take part. This year marked the fourth year of Officer Siebert's ``Buzz the Fuzz'' fundraiser. Officer Siebert is an inspiration to all. Californians are extremely proud of Officer Siebert's dedication to his police work, the community, and to children who bravely face the devastation of cancer. He is most deserving of this award and the outpouring of admiration he receives from colleagues and friends. I am honored to pay tribute to him, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in wishing Officer Michael Siebert much continued success in his law enforcement career.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to recognize a constituent, Joe Cenoz, who will, at the end of the month, mark his 50th year of exemplary service to the American Legion California Boys State program. Since 1935, the Boys State program has brought together high school boys from across their States to immerse them in a week of education about, and simulation of, their State government. The California program began in 1938, and Mr. Cenoz is the first counselor in the history of the California Boys State program to reach 50 years of service. His work has touched the lives of nearly 50,000 young Californians and 3,000 staff members who have served with and under his guidance. Mr. Cenoz began his 50 years of service with the California Boys State program in 1951 as a city counselor. In 1955, he also assumed the role of political party counselor, helping to guide the Boys State delegates through the process of partisan politics. In 1961, Mr. Cenoz was elevated to the role of county counselor. In this role, he worked with the delegates of the three cities that made up the county, while continuing his role as political party counselor. In 1974, Mr. Cenoz moved to the role of assistant chief counselor, guiding the California Boys State counseling staff and delegates through the week-long program. He became the chief counselor in 1981, assuming overall responsibility for the activities that make up the California Boys State program. The 2003 California Boys State session will be Mr. Cenoz's 23rd serving as chief counselor. In 1980, Mr. Cenoz was invited to join the staff of Boys Nation. Boys Nation is an extension of the Boys State program. Annually, two boys from each Boys State program around the country are selected to represent their home States at the 10-day Boys Nation program in Washington, DC. Mr. Cenoz has been a leader outside of the California Boys State program as well, serving in the U.S. Navy and the Navy Reserve as a submariner from 1941 to 1953. He served in both World War II and the Korean war. Additionally, Mr. Cenoz served as a police officer with the city of Pomona, beginning in 1951, and retiring at the rank of lieutenant in 1980. Mr. Cenoz's actions demonstrate his dedication to serving his country and the State of California, and I offer my hearty congratulations to him for his 50 years of service to the California Boys State program.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 25th anniversary of Marin Services for Women. Since 1978, Marin Services for Woman MSW, has helped women recover from drug and alcohol abuse. It is the only agency in Marin County that provides alcohol and drug treatment programs designed to meet the specific needs of women and their families. MSW works tirelessly to ensure the physical and emotional health of Bay Area women by working one-on-one with individuals and providing them with specialized treatment. MSW's treatment philosophy is a comprehensive, gender-specific, culturally responsible approach to alcohol and drug recovery. MSW respects and encourages each client's strengths and provides social, economic and political empowerment. Throughout its 25 years of service, MSW has successfully provided a safe haven for women seeking recovery by providing female staff role models who reflect the diversity of the client population; residential and outpatient services that address the addiction patterns of women; and intensive case management to assist with employment status, access to housing, and use of outside health and social services. MSW's success in advancing community recovery by providing specialized treatment tailored to each individual woman has set a standard for care in the Bay Area. For 25 years, Marin Services for Women has served as a beacon for women who have nowhere else to turn. Their dedication to the community is inspiring and impressive. I congratulate Marin Services for Women on their 25th anniversary and wish them another 25 years of success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention the exemplary achievements and outstanding service of Officer Clayton Harmston of the San Francisco Police Department. The American Legion, Department of California has chosen Officer Clayton Harmston as its Law Enforcement Officer of the Year for Valor. Officer Harmston is receiving this award for the extraordinary heroism he displayed in the line of duty on July 7, 2002. On that day, Officer Harmston and his partner stopped a vehicle that was operating in a suspicious manner. During the vehicle stop, Officer Harmston approached the passenger, who was just paroled from State prison. The passenger refused to submit to a search and immediately attacked Officer Harmston. A struggle ensued, Officer Harmston was knocked to the ground face-first, and then the parolee drew his loaded weapon on Officer Harmston. Although injured and dazed, Officer Harmston demonstrated great presence of mind and warned his partner of the gun. When Harmston's partner distracted the parolee, Officer Harmston displayed remarkable courage by attempting to pull the gun away from the parolee. During the struggle, the parolee shot Officer Harmston who was able to roll away to cover, where a gun battle began. The gunman was struck and fell to the ground, refusing to release his weapon until it was taken from his grip. Officer Clayton Harmston, despite his injuries, used all his abilities and resources to protect his partner and ultimately end this dangerous situation. Officer Harmston is an inspiration to all. It is because of the courage and valor of police officers such as Clayton Harmston that our streets are safer. Californians are extremely proud of Officer Harmston. He is most deserving of the American Legion, Department of California's Law Enforcement Officer of the Year for Valor award and of the admiration that he receives from colleagues and friends. I am honored to pay tribute to him, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in wishing Officer Harmston much continued success in his law enforcement career.