Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there has seldom been a more important time for Congress to support Israel. Right now, both the United States and Israel are under attack, and we share a common enemy--terrorism. The goals of these terrorists are clear. They want to kill innocent men, women, and children to further their cause--whatever it may be. They want to strike at our democracies and test the freedoms of the United States and our greatest democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel. They are willing to train their sons and daughters to murder others by strapping explosives to their bodies and detonating themselves in civilian areas. But this is a test both nations will pass. Why is this so? I think it is because our shared ideals of respect for religion, freedom of thought, and peace throughout the world make us stronger than those who fly airplanes into buildings and blow up restarants. We will pass this test because the United States and Israel are united in our resolve that we will not change our ideals and our principles in the face of cowards. We can never be forced to surrender our freedoms. Why do I have such faith and hope that Israel will weather this current storm of violence? I simply look at the history of Israel since independence nearly 54 years ago. I am struck by the resolve of the Israeli people. After the long-fought War for Independence, Israel suffered more than 10,000 acts of terrorism prior to the 1956 Sinai Campaign. That number is remarkable given that the population of Israel at the time was just 2 million. In 1967, Israel overcame a hostile Arab alliance that threatened the existence of the nation from all sides. The early 1970s brought a massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria on Judaism's most holy day. The 1980s were marked by the first intifadah, and the 1990s by Scud Missiles and the Gulf War. Today, no Israeli man or woman can get on a bus or walk in a marketplace without fearing for his or her life. Israel and its people have always been faced with violence and terror, its very existence continuously threatened by its neighbors. But how has Israel responded? By developing a thriving democracy that respects human rights. By working hard to create an economy that has successfully operated in the face of hostile Arab boycotts. And by showing over and over again its commitment to peace by reaching out to the world to sign the Camp David Accords with Egypt, to engage in the Oslo process with the Palestinians, to unilaterally withdraw from Lebanon and even by reaching out two years ago to one of the most notorious state-sponsors of terrorism, Syria. And, today, in the face of everything, it is Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who is urging to a return to the peace table and laying out the roadmap that leads to peace. Unfortunately, Israel's courage to make peace has, in large part, not been reciprocated in these cases, and it has certainly not be reciprocated by Yasser Arafat. In 1993, Yitzhak Rabin took a bold step by entering into the Oslo Accords and beginning a process marked by the principle that peace in the Middle East could be achieved by trading land for peace. It's something that the Arab countries and the Palestinians said that they wanted. Did Israel live up to its commitments set out in the Oslo Accords? Yes, it did. During the 1990s, Israel transferred control of 40 percent of West Bank land and 70 percent of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority. Yet Arafat was not able to, or did not want to, provide security and continuously violated the accords. Then, President Clinton put a plan on the table. After all the land was already transferred to the Palestinians, Israel was willing to give up a staggering 95 percent of the West Bank during the Camp David talks. But Yasser Arafat walked away from that too. And I remember the despair I felt when this happened. You had to wonder, at that point, what this was really all about. And not only did he walk away, Arafat started another intifadah. Now I want to take a minute to talk about a visit Democratic Senators had with Tom Friedman, a columnist who, over the years, has been very balanced in his approach to the Middle East. I cannot remember the exact conversation, so I will retell it to the best of my recollection. Mr. Friedman said that he was stunned that Arafat walked away after being offered 95 percent of what he wanted, he questioned the Palestinian leadership to learn why. And the answer came back from the Palestinians that they needed more time to look this over, to see the details of the plan. Mr. Friedman said that if that was all true why the intifadah. And the answer from the Palestinians was that they could not take one more day of the occupation. Mr. Friedman was incredulous. The Palestinians could not take one more day of the occupation, yet refused offers that would have ended occupation. Where is the sense in this? So this intifadah has been a calculated plan of violence. Mr. Friedman later wrote in a column that, ``the world must understand that the Palestinians have not chosen suicide bombing out of desperation . . . stemming from the Israeli occupation . . . [It] is because they actually want to win their independence in blood and fire. All they can agree on as a community is what they want to destroy, not what they want to build.'' We are left to ask ourselves, does Arafat want peace? I say the facts dictate that he does not. Arafat is telling us that he wants peace on one hand, but on the other he is leading the Palestinian people away from what it is in their best interests, a lasting peace with Israel. A look back at history shows that Palestinian leaders have walked away from possible statehood and secure borders with Israel four times, once in 1937 and in 1947, and then twice under plans presented by Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Clinton. How many times will it take before we realize that there is something else going on here. They were offered a homeland four times. The Palestinians need to understand: it's not about the homeland, it's about all the land. This strategy of suicide bombing is barbaric, it is to be condemned, and I am shocked at how little condemnation you hear around the world for this tactic. When I take this issue up with leaders from other Arab countries, the answer is ``well, people are desperate and they will do desperate things.'' When I bring up the issue of women and girls blowing themselves up, they just give me the brush off. We will never forget the Palestinian suicide bomber who killed 27 Israelis as they were sitting down for the traditional feast marking the beginning of Passover. Zeev Vidor was one of he Israelis killed in the attack and today his kidney is keeping alive a Palestinian woman who was in need of a transplant. This is possible because the family of Zeev Vidor knew the value of using life to give life, whereas those who entice suicide bombers believe in using life to destroy life. And I think that whole story is a metaphor for what we are talking about. Since September 2000, 170 Israelis have been killed by more than 60 suicide bombers. Last year I worked on a resolution with Senator George Allen right before September 11 to condemn suicide bombing. After September 11, the resolution was shelved briefly, but it eventually passed the Senate in October. Earlier this year, when we saw the women strapping on bombs, I went to all the women in the United States Senate, 13 of us, Democrats and Republicans, and got them to sign on to a resolution that passed earlier this year. Then, I wrote to Palestinian envoy Dr. Hanan Ashrawi and urged her to speak out clearly against this horrible escalation of violence. Women suicide bombers are a deadly tactic used by the al-Aqsa militant group that is linked to Yasser Arafat. An al-Aqas leader in Bethlehem has been quoted as saying that ``we have 200 young women, from the Bethlehem area alone ready to sacrifice themselves for the homeland.'' You notice that the older people don't do this, they just entice the young, which adds to the horror. One such suicide bombing by an 18-year-old Palestinian girl was responsible for the death of a 17-year-old Israeli girl named Rachel who was only on a quick errand to buy some herbs for the fish dinner her mother was preparing nearby. It is tragic when young women are willing to kill each other in this fashion. It is even more tragic that the people these women look to for guidance are actively encouraging these acts of terror. Earlier this month there was a story of one of the highest ranking Muslim leaders in Lebanon giving his blessing to female suicide bombers, calling them part of a ``new glorious history for Arab and Muslim women.'' And what about Mrs. Arafat, telling an interviewer that if she had a son, she could conceive of ``no greater honor'' than having him strap on an explosive belt. I have to tell you, the truth we have to look at is horrible, but we better look at it. Believe me, I am the last one who wanted to be dismayed or discouraged. I am in politics because I want to see a peaceful world, because I want a healthy environment for everyone, because I want all children to have hope. But we have to look at this, and we have to be strong and clear. And I am going to be very clear. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the McConnel-Feinstein legislation that says that Arafat must meet his commitments or be sanctioned by the United States. And I am honored to be the author of the Syrian Accountability Act. This bill that I introduced would expand sanctions against Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, if it continues to support groups like Hamas and Hisbalah, does not fully withdraw from Lebanon, continues to develop and deploy ballistic missiles, and remains in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. From the death of innocent civilians in Israel, to attacks on Jews in the former Soviet Union; from Daniel Pearl saying ``I am a Jew'' shortly before his execution to the leader of a French political party saying that the gas chamber is just a detail of history, we know that this is a difficult and trying time for people of the Jewish faith. I believe the Senate must send a message of hope and a message of action. We have friends outside the Jewish community who are standing with us. We ought to thank them and embrace them. Just as we had friends during the Holocaust, we must always embrace them. We must always form those coalitions. I believe that Americans of all faiths and people of all faiths across this world understand what is at stake here. Because it really is about humanity. Israel will come out of this strong, and remain a beacon of hope in the Middle East with the United States standing by as one of its greatest allies. I agree with Prime Minister Sharon that the peace table must be rebuilt and there must once again be a process in place to resolve at long last the difficult challenges of the Middle East.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object for one moment, I didn't realize the Senator from Nevada was speaking against my amendment. Therefore, because of his eloquence, I ask that I be able to speak for 8 minutes instead of 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is an extraordinary thing about the bill we are debating. For the first time in history, makers of a product are being given a waiver of all liability essentially, if something in that product goes wrong in the future. For anyone who cares about consumers and communities, this is a terrible situation because we do not know what is going to happen with ethanol. Now, I am not in the least bit hostile to ethanol. I think it is an exciting possibility that we can help our farmers and we can have a good additive that cleans the air. I know it opens up an opportunity, for example, for my rice growers that they can make ethanol from rice. So I am not at all hostile. In fact, most of my friends know, in the pro-ethanol caucus, as I call them, that I am the one who led the fight to ban MTBE because it is so damaging to the water supply. What concerns me is giving the makers of this product carte blanche to walk away if in the future we find out there is a problem. When I brought this issue up to the ethanol folks in the Senate, they said: Well, Senator, we are mandating ethanol in this bill and, therefore, if the Government is mandating ethanol, then we should give them a waiver from being held accountable if something goes wrong. That reasoning is faulty and it is not borne out by the way we do business in this country. For example, we mandate that there be seatbelts in all cars, but we do not exempt car companies from being held accountable if they make a defective seatbelt. They are held accountable. We mandated seatbelts, but they are held accountable for the safety of the product. We mandated that there be airbags in all cars, but we do not exempt car companies from being held accountable if there is a defective airbag. We mandated that all mammographer machines meet certain safety standards. Even though we had a mandate that they meet certain standards in terms of the radiation that can leak from them, we did not say they cannot be held accountable. In the 1990 Clean Air Act, we mandated that either MTBE or ethanol be used in gasoline, but neither was let off the hook for any damage they caused. So the first argument that the Government is mandating this so there should be no liability for the people who make ethanol does not hold up. The second time I came back and made the argument, I was told: In the bill, the Government will pick up all costs if there is a problem. So I said, that is interesting. So my wonderful staff went back and read every page of the bill. They could not find anyplace in the bill where the Government picks up the tab. So they spoke to everyone they could and said, well, did we miss something? There is nothing in the bill that says the liability will be shifted from the people who make the product to the Federal Government. I have scratched my head and said, is there any precedent at all? I thought, maybe the Price-Anderson Act, which by the way I have never supported--the bottom line is it says if there is an accident in a nuclear powerplant, the taxpayers will pick up the tab. But even there the nuclear powerplants have to pay an insurance premium over to the Federal Government so at least they are paying part of the tab if, God forbid, there should be an accident at a nuclear powerplant. There is no premium being paid by the people who make ethanol. So that is the second place where this myth is exploded. There is nothing in the bill that says the Government will pick up the tab. There is a third myth. They say we are only providing a safe harbor from one type of lawsuit: defective products. So I went to my lawyerly staff, and I said: They are saying no problem, they are only exempting these companies from a very narrow provision of law. Well, the defective product argument is the only one that will hold up in court. It is the one that people are using as they seek to get damages for MTBE. So very cleverly, the way this bill is crafted, I assure everyone, by the attorneys for the oil companies--I can assure everyone that--it is crafted in a way so the liability is waived in a way so people can never be held accountable. Why is this so important? Because if one looks back at what happened with MTBE, they see the argument that did carry weight was the defective product argument. Why is it important to everyone? Because in the beginning everyone thought MTBE was safe, and now even though the people who want to support this mandate are saying the product is safe, there are studies in the bill to find out if it is really safe. We do not know. Senator Feinstein, who I see in the Chamber, has gone into this matter in great detail. We do not know what can happen. What we do know is it cleans the air but it makes smog worse. We know that but we really do not know what is going to occur when the components break down. The city of Santa Monica had to sue because they paid over $200 million to try to clean up the damage from MTBE. We hope they will be able to recover because they sued under this defective product provision. Myth four: Ethanol is safe; no need to worry about liability. I was not born yesterday, as everyone can tell, and if there is no need to worry about liability then why have the waiver for liability? It does not make sense. Obviously, somebody is worried about it. The oil companies are worried about it, I can say that. One does not give a special exemption from liability--and one does not work to get it in the bill and, by the way, fight for it, because I have tried to get some agreement on it and the oil companies do not want to give an inch on it--if you are 100-percent convinced that it is safe. As the Washington Post points out in its April 16 editorial, the safe harbor liability protection is ``hardly a sign of confidence in ethanol's environmental merits.'' We cannot have it both ways. One cannot stand up and say this is safe and then fight to protect their product. Consumers should be outraged, and that is why we have every consumer group that I know of supporting this amendment. That is why we have every environmental group that I know of supporting this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, now I will be happy to yield, with the understanding I will not lose my right to the floor, to several of my colleagues.

Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield. amendment no. 3326 to amendment No. 2917

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we already have a unanimous consent agreement. I think it would be wise of my colleagues just simply not to interrupt and to have a conversation with the Senator from Alaska while I begin.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I tell my friend, under the UC agreement, I have agreed to yield--and, of course, Senators have the right to object, but I agreed to yield next to Senator Corzine and then Senator Dorgan, and then I go back to my amendment and we get this done. I wanted to be congenial to my colleagues because they have done that for me in the past.

Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this has been an interesting beginning to my amendment. I am looking forward to getting to it, which I am going to do right now. I want to clarify that the time that was used did not come off my 51 minutes, which is what I said in my UC request when I began: That none of the time would come off the time I have.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I did say it, but it may have been lost in the shuffle. Amendment No. 3311

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. Senator Dayton was here yesterday, from ethanol country, supporting this amendment. I think it takes guts to do it, but the Senator is right. The people we have been meeting with from the Corn Belt--the producers, the farmers--do not like this. Frankly, they do not like the liability waiver. I believe it is the oil companies that came to the table that were fighting for this. I am pleased the Senator is a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that John Kerry be added as a cosponsor.

Mrs. BOXER. We have been hit with several myths. Another myth is ETBE is not included in the safe harbor. We are glad it isn't. ETBE is only one form of ethanol and not the most prominent form. Most ethanol will be exempted and will have this safe harbor. I state for the record who supports this Boxer-Feinstein-Durbin- Kerry-Schumer amendment: the National Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the League of Conservation Voters, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the American Lung Association, Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the American Water Works Association, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the Association of California Water Agencies, and the South Tahoe Public Utility District. It is true that even the groups that support the ethanol mandate agree with our amendment on liability--for example, the American Lung Association and the Blue Water Network. Even among the supporters of ethanol--such as Senator Durbin and Senator Dayton--supporters have no qualms about going forward with this amendment. They realize the double standard is wrong. When Senator Feinstein began the debate on why California is leery of this mandate, she made several points. One dealt with the issue of price. Again, we were told over and over again, the Department of Energy says, yes, there will be a 9-cent increase per gallon in certain places and 7 elsewhere. That was wrong; it would only be a penny. Senator Feinstein made the point we have had some bad experiences with collusion in the area of our electricity. If there are only four or five people who make the product, we could have problems. Yesterday there was a San Francisco Chronicle article: ``Memos show possible ethanol price-fixing.'' I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Essentially, it shows Congressman Ose from California got ahold of memos that show, if you are doubtful, they are already talking about how they will get the highest price possible for this product. I add that because it is important that when we voted on some of the other ethanol issues, everyone said: Don't listen to the people from California. Now it is time to listen to us. We have been through some troubles in our State because there wasn't transparency; there was manipulation of supply and electricity. We don't want to see that happen to any other State. We don't want to see it happen to gasoline. When the people who objected to points made by Senator Feinstein and Senator Schumer, saying they were wrong, there would be no problem, this article shows possible ethanol price fixing. This is just the beginning. I don't want to see, in 2 years, communities in trouble because it turned out ethanol was not as safe as they said and we had problems in our communities and there is no way to recuperate from the manufacturers of ethanol. I diverted into the issue of possible price fixing; I hope people listen. I am not here because I am hostile to ethanol. I would like to see it move a little slower. I want to see the health studies. I am not hostile to using ethanol. We are going to use it in a lot of our gasoline. It may turn out to be the panacea. We don't know. I am saying: Be cautious and do not give anyone a blanket waiver of liability from the one area of the law--defective product--that people may have at their disposal. I ask my colleague, does she want me to yield for questions?

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleague and friend and partner in this effort, we are aware of it. I am glad the issue has been raised. This has been an education for everyone as we looked into the study. The underlying bill does a study on the safety of ethanol, which is an admission that they don't know. Therefore, to have a study in the bill, and yet at the same time, before we have the facts from the study, waive this liability is terrible for consumers and States. I am happy the Senator asked the question and I continue to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my senior Senator, I have. In addition to the benzene, I make the point there are other dangerous areas--not only benzene but ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene. We believe ethanol may inhibit the breakdown of these toxic materials. Yes, we have a blue-ribbon panel, the State. That is why I think we are disturbed at the liability waiver. I say to my friend, it is incredible because everyone said MTBE was wonderful, too. Now we have more warning about ethanol than we had about MTBE, and they put in a liability waiver. I am encouraged that Senator Durbin, for example, and Senator Dayton--from ethanol country--are with us on this issue. It means a great deal.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, this is exactly what the liability safeguard provision does. I repeat, the corn people to whom we have spoken really do not like this particularly. They are unhappy with it. But the oil companies are pushing for it. It seems to me, when you hear that Senator Durbin and Senator Dayton, from corn-growing places, support us, that is hopeful. But my friend is right. We are banning MTBE because it is harmful. We do not really know the end result of ethanol. And before we even know the end result, we are waiving liability. He is correct.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, this is a precedent-setting waiver. Even in the case of the Price-Anderson Act where we waived liability for the nuclear power industry, they must pay a premium into a fund, so they are on the hook for billions of dollars. This has never been done. I say further to my friend, when we talk to some of my ethanol- supporting friends, they say: But the Government is mandating this, so therefore they should waive liability. We mandate seatbelts, but if there is a defective seatbelt, a person can sue; airbags, mammograms-- you could go through the list. This is precedent setting, and it is terrible law.

Mrs. BOXER. We are not.

Mrs. BOXER. That is correct. As a matter of fact, the first time I raised it, some of my friends from the ethanol areas said there was a Government backstop in the bill. So I went back. We searched the bill, page after page, and could not find it. We called the people who put together the compromise. As you know, the Senators from California and New York were not in that group when there was a compromise. No one has come up with anything that shows us there is anything in the bill. The bottom line is that a city such as Santa Monica--and you could pick out your cities--that had a horrible problem with MTBE is currently suing to recover $200 million from the oil companies. If that was not allowed, the consumers, our taxpayers, have to pick up the tab. This is the classic case of, in my view, turning away from ``polluter pays'' and going to ``taxpayer pays.'' If ethanol is so safe, then I would say: Why do they have a study on safety in the bill? Why are they seeking this waiver? And why are they ignoring the two studies my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, is going to have printed in the Record, the blue-ribbon committee from EPA, and the State study, that show there is really a problem?

Mrs. BOXER. It will be the biggest unfunded mandate. Not only are they mandating ethanol, and at a very fast pace--and it is very hard for us to be able to accept that much--but they are also saying: Local communities, you are on your own.

Mrs. BOXER. The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It was made under the defective product cause of action. Had they not had that available to them--which is exactly what this bill would do, eliminate that--they would not have had a case; the people of Lake Tahoe would be stuck paying $45 million. This is a small area. So, in closing, let me say this: I say to my friends here, please, rise above all of this special interest politics and think about what is good for your people. We know what is good for your people is to make sure they are protected--protected from a product that may cause them and their community harm. If we don't vote for this amendment, I worry and fear for the future. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. My colleague is absolutely correct. If I might tell her that, in the Lake Tahoe case against MTBE, the only cause of action the court allowed was the very one they are trying to do away with, as she pointed out, the defective product liability. It was $45 million to clean up the mess at Lake Tahoe, an area of our Nation that my colleague and I, Senators Reid, and others have worked so hard to protect. The fact is, they had a horrible problem because of the boats using the gasoline with MTBE, which is now banned on Lake Tahoe. They went to court to try to get the $45 million. We still don't know. The jury did come back, and they found for the good guys, the plaintiffs.