Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think for anyone in this Chamber who cares about the health and safety of people--I know that is every one of us--this amendment is very important. A waiver of liability is in this underlying bill for renewable fuels. My amendment to the renewable fuels portion of this Energy bill will ensure that all motor vehicle fuels and fuel additives are held to the same liability standards by striking the safe harbor and adding the following language. This is the language of my amendment: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a renewable fuel used or intended to be used as a motor vehicle fuel, or any motor vehicle fuel containing renewable fuel, shall be subject to liability standards that are not less protective of human health, welfare, and the environment than any other motor vehicle fuel or fuel additive. Is this not a fair idea? As we go into this whole new production of ethanol, be it derived from corn or be it derived from agricultural residues or municipal waste or wherever we wind up getting it, renewable fuel should be subject to the same liability standards as any other motor vehicle fuel. We have expenses in this area--where we have added MTBE, for example, to fuel. We found out later it was very dangerous. It hurt a lot of our communities. I will get into that later. The safe harbor language in this underlying bill waives all product liability design defect claims, including the failure to warn the people. Any claim that has not been filed by the date of enactment of this section will be forever barred. We should not be doing this. We don't know all the impacts of what we are doing today. Why would we give a safe harbor to ethanol or various refiners of ethanol? I have to say to those who will oppose me--and there will be many, and I know that, and I accept that--if ethanol is so safe--I pray it is; maybe it is, by the way--if it is so safe, why have the companies involved in its production transferred this liability provision in the bill? I think anytime someone says my product is 100 percent safe, but give me a waiver from liability, protect me from a lawsuit if something happens--you have to say who wins and who loses in this situation. Requests for this kind of special interest free pass require a very close look. And I hope we will take a look. The interests behind this bill have gotten a loophole that eliminates a big chunk of the liability they would have under the law if they damaged the public health or the environment. The exemption language in the bill raises a red flag right away. It begins: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or state law. . . . Mr. President, you and I have been around here long enough to know that when we start off with ``notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law,'' the public is going to be losing rights. The bill goes on to say that ``Renewable fuel--ethanol cannot be found to be defectively designed or manufactured.'' Imagine, the bill says ``Renewable fuels cannot be found to be defectively designed or manufactured.'' Compliance with laws and regulations is not necessary for getting the liability waiver. There is only a limited compliance requirement under the Clean Air Act. Again, we all pray and hope that there will be no danger from widespread use of ethanol. The liability exemption, however, is dangerous because there are many unanswered questions about ethanol. We know there are real benefits to it, such as fewer carbon monoxide and toxic air emissions, but there are questions about adverse effects. According to EPA's ``1999 Blue Ribbon Panel Report on Oxygenates in Gasoline,'' ethanol is extremely soluble in water and would spread into the environment. It may further spread plumes of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene because ethanol may inhibit the breakdown of these toxic materials. This isn't Senator Boxer talking. This isn't the people who want this amendment talking. This isn't environmental groups talking. This isn't the American Lung Association talking or anybody else. This is EPA's 1999 Blue Ribbon Panel Report on Oxygenates in Gasoline. Studies demonstrate that ethanol increases the size and migration of benzene plumes. Researchers say more ground water wells will experience contamination from MTBE and benzene, a known carcinogen, if ethanol leaks into water supplies. There are also questions about the impact of ethanol on sensitive populations, such as children. We already know we have seen in our children more and more problems lately, more and more problems because they are so much more sensitive to pollutants in the environment. Questions surrounding ethanol's effect on public health and the environment should be answered before Congress grants a broad waiver from liability for its harmful effects. We should err on the side of caution and we should err on the side of protecting the taxpayers. Supporters of this liability exemption argue that immunity from product liability design defect claims is not so broad. They are going to tell you we keep every other claim in place but we only will limit product liability design defect claims. But this ignores the fact that product defect claims are the clearest way to hold accountable manufacturers whose products cause injury to public health or the environment. Litigation in California involving drinking water contaminated by MTBE rests on claims that MTBE was defective in design. In a landmark case, decided in April 2000, a San Francisco jury found that, based on the theory that MTBE is a defective product, several major oil companies are legally responsible for the environmental harm to Lake Tahoe's ground water. The jury found that many of these same oil companies acted with malice because they were aware of the dangers but withheld information. So here you go, Mr. President. You can see it, a jury of our peers-- not Senators, not people behind a microphone--found out that the product MTBE, which is an additive to gasoline, as is ethanol, was defective in design. The verdict came forward based on the product liability issue. In that case, the oil companies knew the risks of MTBE. They did not warn anyone and--guess what--Lake Tahoe could have gotten stuck with a $45 million cleanup bill. If it was not able to sue under the defective product claim, that $45 million would have to come from the taxpayers who live in Lake Tahoe. Let's see what the MTBE cleanup cost would be. According to recent estimates, it would cost $29 billion to clean up MTBE. MTBE, an additive to gasoline--when it was added, everyone stood up and said: Oh, it is safe. It is wonderful. It will clean up the air. It did. But it polluted the water. People can't drink the water. If you ever smelled water that is contaminated by MTBE, you would know no one could drink it. It has a foul odor and it is yellow in color. This is what it is going to cost. If we waive the liability for the companies that make MTBE, guess who gets stuck with the $29 billion bill. The taxpayers, instead of the people who made that product. That is not right. By the way, in the House version of this bill, they not only give a safe harbor to ethanol, they give it to MTBE, which is a total, complete outrage. I hope everyone understands that. It is in the House bill. I am happy it isn't in the Senate bill. I hope we can get rid of it in the conference. Companies are responsible for this, not the taxpayers. Now, this is the issue. Again, people will stand up and say: Oh, we are only waiving this very small area in liability law. They say: Product liability design defect is all we are waiving. Well, let's look at what the judge said in the MTBE case. He threw out the negligence claim. He said that did not apply. He threw out the nuisance claim. He said that did not apply. The only thing that applied was defective product liability--and that is what my colleagues are going to waive for the makers of renewable fuels. My colleagues, please listen to me. I know you want to have an ethanol bill. Bless your heart. Go for it. But do not waive liability for the manufacturers of ethanol because someday it could come back to haunt you. If ethanol is so safe, you do not need to do this. It makes no sense. You talk to my colleagues: Ethanol is safe. It has been out there since the 1970s. It is safe, it is safe, it is safe. I guess maybe they have not read the 1999 special EPA Blue Ribbon Report, which says: Danger, maybe there is a problem. But for them to waive defective product liability and to say that is the only thing they are waiving, when it is the only thing the courts have said is an opportunity, makes no sense at all. I had one of my colleagues come up to me yesterday and say: Well, Senator Boxer, you voted for a safe harbor in the Y2K bill when the computer companies had to do a very quick fix on computers. I say to my friends, I did that. That only happens once in 1,000 years, and there is no direct impact on health and safety. So let's not confuse one safe harbor and another safe harbor. So, clearly, we know this is kind of a shuck and a jive situation: Oh, we are only going to throw out one little part of liability law. But guess what. It is the only one that works. We do not want communities to be left holding the bag if there is a problem in the future because that is a pretty heavy bag for the local community and the local taxpayers to pick up--its cleanup costs, its possible health problems and its water pollution and possible air pollution. I am going to get to the issue that the supporters will raise: That this is a mandate and, therefore, the suppliers deserve this liability exemption. Congress regularly mandates that manufacturers meet a variety of guidelines and requirements, but we do not exempt all manufacturers from State and Federal product liability design defect laws. When gasoline leaks today, there is no loophole. The polluter pays, despite the fact that Congress regulates gasoline. Congress mandated the installation of airbags in automobiles, made them mandatory. Congress said: You must have airbags. You remember that battle. The automobile companies said: We don't want them. (Of course, now they are saying they are happy to have them.) But, in any case, we mandated them. But if there is a problem with airbags, we did not give a liability waiver to the automobile companies. If that product is defective, the product is defective and people have to be held accountable and responsible. I thought that was what we stood for in the Senate. We talk about accountability. We talk about responsibility. We talk about people taking responsibility for their actions, and yet we are going to give some of the biggest companies in the world a waiver from liability. Shame on us if we do this. It is not as if we did not have experience before, doing it with MTBE. It is not as if we do not know that the cost to clean up MTBE is in the tens of billions of dollars. If the companies were off the hook, it would be the local taxpayers who have to pay. Again, supporters of this liability loophole claim ethanol is safe so no one needs to worry about this liability exemption. So, again, I ask a question--a rhetorical question--if you are not worried about any ill-effects from ethanol, why are you fighting me so hard on this? Why not join hands with me and say we are going to treat ethanol like we treat every other product? I, again, want to read the language I have added in this amendment which I hope will be adopted: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a renewable fuel used or intended to be used as a motor vehicle fuel, or any motor vehicle fuel containing renewable fuels, shall be subject to liability standards that are not less protective of human health, welfare, and the environment than any other motor vehicle fuel or fuel additive. That is all I am saying. I am not holding ethanol to a different standard. I just spoke in support of ethanol made from agricultural residues. I think those folks have to meet safety standards, and one way to make sure they do is to not take away their liability. Ethanol should be subject to liability standards as strong as any other fuel additive. No more, no less. We are not making it any harsher. We are not making it any easier on them. We should not shift the burden of cleaning up problems caused by ethanol to our local communities, our mayors, our city council people, our Governors, and the rest. No public policy is served by immunizing the refiners and chemical companies from responsibility in the future if it turns out that this was a problem and they knew it, and they didn't tell anyone about it. How much time remains on my side, Mr. President?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a couple of minutes remaining. I know we are going to set our amendment aside. I wanted to close this debate again by thanking Senator Lugar for his leadership, Senator Cantwell for her leadership, and both Senators from New Mexico as well as Senator Daschle for their help. I think any Senator who has corn in their State, wheat in their State, sugarcane in their State, rice, barley, beets, oats, apples, or any fructose-rich product is going to be very happy with this amendment. In order to use the agricultural residue and make it into ethanol, it is going to require a little incentive. Although the underlying bill has a slight incentive, experts tell us it is not enough to really move forward on this very good way to make ethanol. I think it will really help those States that are far away from the Midwest. By the way, it does not hurt any State because corn will still be used. I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues very much. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield 6 minutes to my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell.

Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains?

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose the Pentagon's plan for a new round of military base closures in 2005. California has already endured more than its fair share of previous base closures. Of the 97 major military installations closed nationwide since 1988, 29 were in California. That's 30 percent of all major facilities closed. Californians are all too familiar with the serious impact of closed military facilities on their communities. Jobs are lost, small businesses close down, and what is left is infrastructure that is difficult to reuse. In many cases, environmental contamination makes large tracts of land off limits until decades of cleanup are complete. By the Pentagon's own estimates, some closed California bases won't be fully cleaned up until 2069. The former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento is a good example of the failure of the Department of Defense to clean-up bases that were closed through the BRAC process. Rob Leonard, the former head of Sacramento's Military Base Conversion office, recently testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee about the status of McClellan. According to Mr. Leonard's testimony, 6 years ago the estimated cost to clean-up McClellan was $832 million and was projected to take 30 years. Today, the cost is estimated to be $1.3 billion and is anticipated to continue far beyond 2033. At the same time, however, he goes on to say that ``over the past two years the Air Force appropriation requests for the McClellan environmental program have not been fully supported by the Department of Defense and Congress; and as a result, the clean-up schedule has been adversely affected.'' Another example is the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. This base, which was closed in the 1993 round of BRAC, will not be cleaned- up until 2034 at the earliest. The DOD's own estimates say that it will still take at least $77 million to complete the work. Contamination on the base, including a nine acre hazardous-waste dump, has led to delays in the reuse and redevelopment of the site. These former California bases are not the exception--they are the norm. Consider the estimated clean-up completion dates for the following California bases: George Air Force Base--2031; Castle Air Force Base--2038; Tustin Marine Corps Air Station--2038; Moffett Field Naval Air Station--2032; and Fort Ord--2031. It seems to me that the military should finish one job before it starts another. The DOD should concentrate on cleaning up what has already been closed so that these bases can be put to productive use by local communities. Given that the Department of Defense continues to drag its feet on cleaning up BRAC sites while pushing for broad exemptions from environmental standards leads me to believe that it simply does not understand the importance of a safe and clean environment. The Pentagon should focus its energy and resources on cleaning up the bases it has already closed rather than pursue another painful round of military base closures. I hope my colleagues share this view and I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield? I know my friend from Arkansas has a very important meeting tonight, on behalf of her children, as it turns out. That is why she is the perfect person--I ask my friend, before he leaves the floor--to have brought this to us, because she knows children's needs very well, after raising the most beautiful twin kids who I happen to know personally and consider them friends. I guess my question to my friend--and I will be brief on this question--is this: Does my friend have any idea--and I don't expect him to know--how many of these kids come from California? He talks about 12 million. Does he have any notion? I would say to my friend the answer is about 10 percent, about 10 percent of those kids. I want to say to my friend that in this tax cut, if we do not fix it the way my friend from Arkansas wants to fix it--and make no mistake, it could have been done already, all this rigmarole and parliamentary procedure aside. In California people who make between $10,000 and $20,000, their average tax cut--does my friend have any idea what it might be?

Mrs. BOXER. I will just take a minute. I would say it is important to note that the people in California--and I assume this is true of the people in the State of Tennessee, in the State of Arkansas, and perhaps New York as well--the people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, their average tax cut, which the President signed into law and most Democrats voted against and most Republicans voted for--their average tax cut is $7. These are working people. They are working. They are getting their hands dirty. They are keeping this country going. The top elite few get hundreds of thousands back and these people get $7 a year. If they have children, they are suffering, and all my friend from Arkansas is saying is: Give these families a little fairness. They pay payroll taxes. They pay sales taxes. They have to live. And, by the way, giving them a check is going to stimulate this economy, not by giving it to people like Leona Helmsley. She has everything she needs, thank you very much. I don't mean to pick on her particularly--but Warren Buffett has said it well himself. He doesn't need it. He has his kids and their kids and their future kids and their future kids covered. He has every generation of Buffetts covered. All we are doing is fighting for the people who need us the most. I thank my friend from Arkansas for her courage and I want to say how much I support her and how much I am looking forward to voting in favor of her amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention an exceptional educator--Michele Pecina, the principal of James Monroe Elementary School in Madera, CA. Michele Pecina was recently named California's National Distinguished Principal of the Year by the National Association of Elementary School Principals. She will receive her award in November in Washington, DC. For 9 years, Michele Pecina has been the principal at James Monroe Elementary School. Under her expert guidance, the school was named a California Distinguished School in 1997 and has also received two Bell awards from the California School Boards Association. Michele Pecina believes in her students and teachers and demonstrates that belief to them every day. The result is they believe in themselves. their success in school, and in life, is remarkable. Californians are extremely proud of Michele Pecina. I am honored to pay tribute to her. I encourage my colleagues to join me in wishing Michele Pecina continued success as she continues her exceptional work in education.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased to take a few moments to recognize the many important accomplishments of Dr. Karen J. Harshman as she retires as superintendent of the Fontana Unified School District. Dr. Harshman has led Fontana schools through a period of unprecedented growth and during a time of increased demands on schools, and has done so with great success. Dr. Harshman began her career in education as a substitute teacher. Since that early assignment, she has been a teacher, coordinator, principal, director, and assistant superintendent. She also serves as an instructor at local college campuses, guiding new teachers and administrators as they learn the educational ropes. Since 1994, Dr. Harshman has lead the Fontana Unified School District as its superintendent. During her tenure as superintendent, Fontana has seen phenomenal growth. Six schools have opened under her leadership, and the district currently ranks 17th in size in the State of California. Educational excellence has become a more prominent emphasis during her tenure, and Dr. Harshman has focused the efforts of the district on improving student performance through a variety of innovative programs known throughout California and beyond. Dr. Harshman's accomplishments are not limited to Fontana Unified School District or education. Soroptimist International of Baldy View recently awarded her the Women Helping Women Award for bringing the American Cancer Society Relay for Life to Fontana and for her work with breast cancer survivors. Importantly, the award was also given for her lifelong work mentoring women. The Association of California School Administrators selected her as the Region 12 Superintendent of the Year for 2002. Dr. Harshman is also active in the Fontana Rotary Club, the Fontana Chamber of Commerce, and the Chaffey College Foundation. A portion of Dr. Harshman's biography reads that ``she looks forward to every single day knowing that she is involved in the most important work on the planet.'' I invited all of my colleagues to join me in commending Dr. Karen Harshman for her great leadership doing ``the most important work on the planet''--educating our children.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this bill is called the ``Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.'' That name is wrong. This bill is not about creating jobs and stimulating economic growth. It is about helping the elite few with large tax cuts, while burdening the majority of Americans with a huge debt. Fairness is an American value. And this bill is far from fair. Those making $1 million per year will get a $93,000 tax cut--more than twice the annual income of the typical working family. Meanwhile, 53 percent of Americans will get less than $100. The average tax cut in 2003 for those in the middle of the income spectrum will be $217. And married couples with two children and incomes between $10,000 and $21,000 receive no tax cut at all. To make matters worse, the marriage penalty relief that was in this bill--something that would have helped most working families--was scaled back in order to provide larger tax cuts on dividends and capital gains--something that helps only the elite few. Only about 25 percent of Americans receive taxable dividends. And, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 39 percent of the benefits of that initiative would go to millionaires; another 44 percent would go to the top 10 percent of taxpayers; and only 17 percent of the benefit would go to the bottom 89 percent of taxpayers. If most Americans are not getting tax relief in this bill, what are most Americans getting? Debt. This bill is fiscally irresponsible. The federal budget deficit stands at $400 billion--the largest deficit ever. And our national debt is spiraling upward. In fact, later today, the Senate will vote on a bill to increase the debt limit by nearly $1 trillion. These numbers sound abstract. But they have an impact on all Americans. Because of the higher long-term interest rates that will result, economists have estimated that the rising deficits and debts will, by 2012, take $1000 every year out of the pockets of working Americans. And, the Republican leadership has indicated that they intend to come back and extend the tax cuts that are sunset in this bill. If those provisions are extended, the cost through 2013 will be between $807 billion and $1.06 trillion--even more deficit and even greater debt. This robs Social Security and Medicare surpluses and borrows from our children's future. And it denies us the resources we need to defend our homeland from terrorists and educate our children. In these bad economic times--times of high unemployment, slow growth, and fragile consumer confidence--our first priority should be to stimulate the economy. That is why I believe we need a tax and growth bill. The problem is, this bill does not do it. In fact, the one provision in the Senate-passed bill that would have provided a big boost to our economy--the Ensign-Boxer amendment--was taken out of the bill. Our amendment would have lowered the tax rate, for one year only, on the earnings of the foreign subsidiaries of American companies--if those earnings were brought back to the United States and invested in jobs and the economy. Current official estimates conclude that between $140 and $300 billion in domestic foreign subsidiary income would have been brought back into the American economy during the one-year period. These funds would have helped create American jobs and American opportunities with billions of dollars currently left overseas. But that provision, even though it had broad bipartisan support and passed the Senate 75-25, was stripped from the bill. The one provision that would have done the most to stimulate the economy was dropped from the bill. I am also disappointed that this bill drops my amendment to require those who fail to pay the child support they owe, to add the amount they owe to their taxable income. It was the morally right thing to do. The conferees also failed to close the business tax loophole for giant Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs). In fact, this bill quadruples that loophole. Under this bill, small businesses will be able to deduct up to $100,000 of the cost of these huge passenger vehicles in one year at least through 2005. Smaller SUVs and cars are limited to a deduction of $7,660 in the first year, and $4,900 in the second year after the purchase. This cap is not changed in the bill. But the SUV cap is. As a result, people who do not need a giant SUV for business purposes will buy giant SUVs to take advantage of the much larger tax break. We should scrap this bill and start over. We should pass a bill that would cut taxes for every working American, providing an average benefit of over $1,600 to a family of four making $50,000 a year. We should pass a bill that would provide real assistance to the 8.8 million Americans who are currently unemployed. We should accelerate the refundability of the child tax credit, accelerate the elimination of the marriage penalty, and extend and expand unemployment insurance for those looking for work, including the one million people who have already exhausted their benefits. We should pass a bill that really sparks economic growth. It should include the Ensign-Boxer Invest in the U.S.A. proposal. It should, as the Democratic plan did, assist small businesses with their health care expenses by providing a 50 percent tax credit in 2003. And very important for California, it should provide $40 billion in immediate aid to state and local governments. That would be a good bill to stimulate the economy, provide help to the vast majority of working Americans, and not plunge this nation deeper into debt or plunder the Social Security surpluses. That is a bill we should pass. This bill before us should be defeated.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I will not be long at all, but I just want to support this amendment by my leader, Senator Daschle. It is really simple. It says it is the sense of the Senate that Social Security recipients should not be denied their cost-of-living adjustment. We have just, unfortunately, passed the tax break for the wealthiest few in this country. It is astounding to me, it is sad to me, to think that those in this country who work hard every single day, the average American family, maybe will get $100--but, by the way, probably might not even get that much--whereas the millionaires, the people who seem to touch the heartstrings of the Republicans, are going to get thousands of dollars every single year. And by some magic--magic--this is going to create jobs. We have been there and we have done that. What do my Republican friends say now? Oh, my God, we just did the tax break for the wealthy few. We had better increase the debt burden on all Americans so we can really come through with our promise. This debt, this additional debt is almost $1 trillion more. What is my leader saying? He is saying: At least, at the minimum, there are a few things we should hold dear. One of those is a commitment to the people who are on Social Security. If my colleagues vote no against this--and, by the way, what an excuse they have: The House has gone home. Well, too bad. Let the Speaker of the House bring back the people of the House. Let the Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, bring back the people of the House to vote for the people of this country. What an excuse. They are going to vote no, and they are going to go home and say: I was really for you, but I had to vote no because if I voted yes, then Denny Hastert would have had to bring back the people who represent you in the House. It is time we stood up here for the people, not the wealthiest, the millionaires, and giving excuses as to why what you are doing here is good for the people. I support my leader, and I will support a number of amendments here to keep a commitment to the average working families, and to seniors, and the children of this country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.

Mrs. BOXER. I cannot hear the unanimous consent request.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his generosity.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I just want to ask my leader if he can give me 60 seconds in the debate to speak in favor of the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. BOXER. May I state an inquiry? Would it be possible under the rules of the Senate to hear from our leader for 1 minute since this tables his amendment and he has not had a chance to say why it is being tabled.

Mrs. BOXER. I would so move.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to bring to my colleague's attention to great step forward for the environment that the FedEx Corporation is undertaking. The company recently bought 20 hybrid trucks and has announced that it is planning to replace 30,000 of its delivery trucks with hybrid vehicles over the next 10 years. This means that the FedEx Corporation is one of the first big commercial fleets to move toward using environmentally friendly hybrid vehicles. The 20 hybrid trucks that have already been purchased are the delivery trucks that we see in cities across the Nation every day. These low-emission, hybrid electric-powered delivery vehicles will decrease particulate emissions by 90 percent, reduce smog-causing emissions by 75 percent and increase fuel efficiency by 50 percent. FedEx Express, a subsidiary of FedEx Corporation, has been working on this project for 3 years with Environmental Defense. The company and the environmental organization worked together as partners to develop the concept for manufacturers to create an ``environmentally progressive commercial delivery vehicle.'' I own two hybird cars. They are amazing because as the driver I do not have to change anything. I still fill up the car--although less often--at any gas station. I don't need to change how I drive my car. Similarly, these new hybrid delivery trucks will have no impact how FedEx does its day-to-day business. But it will improve the environment and ultimately save the company money in fuel costs. It is a win-win situation and shows yet again that what is good for the environment can also be good for the economy and business. I congratulate FedEx Corporation for this action, and I urge other companies with large fleets to follow FedEx's lead in transforming their fleets to protect our environment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to increase security and prevent terrorist attacks at our Nation's ports. Ports are extremely important to our nation's economy, especially to my State of California. The ports of LA, Long Beach, and Oakland handle 40 percent of our Nation's cargo and generate billions of dollars in economic activity each year in California alone. The tragic events of September 11 demonstrated that we needed to make improvements in our nation's security. Our ports are no exception. We have begun to make improvements. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I served as a conferee on the port security bill that became law last November. This legislation mandated the creation of national and regional port security plans and better coordination of Federal, State, local, and private enforcement agencies. It also established a grant program for port authorities, waterfront operators, and state and local agencies to provide security infrastructure improvements such as video cameras and more secure fencing. In addition, it calls for the development of regulations to determine secure areas in ports and to limit access through background checks and a transportation security identification card. This legislation was a good first step. But, we need to do more. And I believe we should harness the best of our high-tech capabilities to improve port security. That is why today I am introducing the High-Tech Port Security Act. This legislation has three high tech improvements for our nation's ports. First, the bill would require that all containers used in our Nation's ports be blast resistant. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security would develop a standard for such containers and would work with shipping companies to ensure that all new containers are blast resistant. Second, the bill would require that all containers be inspected with advanced technology before leaving our ports and entering our roads, highways, and communities. The Department of Homeland Security would establish a standard for cargo screening technology and ensure that this technology is installed at all ports, so every incoming container is screened before it leaves the port. This is extremely important because currently only two to three percent of all containers are inspected. Third, this bill will focus protection on the Nation's largest ports by establishing high tech command and control centers to coordinate and monitor security at the 20 busiest ports in the United States. The technologies needed to secure our Nation's vital ports are available today, and they should start being used now. There is no time to lose. The vulnerability of our seaports is no secret; it is a well known gap in our homeland defense. This legislation will help close that gap.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to increase security and prevent terrorist attacks at our Nation's ports. Ports are extremely important to our nation's economy, especially to my State of California. The ports of LA, Long Beach, and Oakland handle 40 percent of our Nation's cargo and generate billions of dollars in economic activity each year in California alone. The tragic events of September 11 demonstrated that we needed to make improvements in our nation's security. Our ports are no exception. We have begun to make improvements. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I served as a conferee on the port security bill that became law last November. This legislation mandated the creation of national and regional port security plans and better coordination of Federal, State, local, and private enforcement agencies. It also established a grant program for port authorities, waterfront operators, and state and local agencies to provide security infrastructure improvements such as video cameras and more secure fencing. In addition, it calls for the development of regulations to determine secure areas in ports and to limit access through background checks and a transportation security identification card. This legislation was a good first step. But, we need to do more. And I believe we should harness the best of our high-tech capabilities to improve port security. That is why today I am introducing the High-Tech Port Security Act. This legislation has three high tech improvements for our nation's ports. First, the bill would require that all containers used in our Nation's ports be blast resistant. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security would develop a standard for such containers and would work with shipping companies to ensure that all new containers are blast resistant. Second, the bill would require that all containers be inspected with advanced technology before leaving our ports and entering our roads, highways, and communities. The Department of Homeland Security would establish a standard for cargo screening technology and ensure that this technology is installed at all ports, so every incoming container is screened before it leaves the port. This is extremely important because currently only two to three percent of all containers are inspected. Third, this bill will focus protection on the Nation's largest ports by establishing high tech command and control centers to coordinate and monitor security at the 20 busiest ports in the United States. The technologies needed to secure our Nation's vital ports are available today, and they should start being used now. There is no time to lose. The vulnerability of our seaports is no secret; it is a well known gap in our homeland defense. This legislation will help close that gap.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I would like to say, I am very supportive of this. I just want to ask if it is the right thing for me to withdraw my amendment, or is that not necessary?