Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I would like to be told when I have used up 7 minutes of my 8. Mr. President, it is such a simple point. People try to complicate simple matters around here. If ethanol is so safe, why have the companies involved in its production pressed for the liability exemption in the bill? I have to say, with respect to my friends from ethanol country, if this chart that my friend from Nevada talked about were submitted as an answer to a question in a bar exam, the person would fail the bar exam because they have mixed up the causes from the remedies. You cannot show all of this and say each one of these is a cause. Compensatory damages is a remedy. Punitive damages is a remedy. The cause of action they are going after here happens to be a very small one, it is true. It is only used in a small number of all civil cases, it is true. But defective product liability is the only cause of action that will hold up in a court of law when you seek to get damages from an additive to gasoline. How do I know this? Because we have done this with MTBE, and every other cause of action that was recommended was thrown out by the court. The only one left standing was defective product. So then my friends say: But we are only eliminating defective product, and it is just a little narrow sliver. Again, they don't pay these oil company attorneys $500 an hour to come up with some overarching thing that people will notice. They pay them to come up with a very narrow exemption that they hope will slip through. Thank goodness, people who have read this bill understand the ramifications of this liability waiver, because this could have slipped through. The fact of the matter is that they have exempted themselves in this so-called ethanol compromise--the compromise where Senator Feinstein wasn't at the table, nor was I, nor were the New York Senators. They compromised it themselves. The oil companies and the ethanol producers came up with this liability waiver. So it is a simple point. If it is meaningless, why won't they take it out? If it only applies to .002 percent of civil cases, then it is meaningless, so why won't they take it out? The other question is, I believe, this is precedent setting. We mandate many things. The Senator from Alaska says we are mandating this. We cannot expect these companies to pick up the tab if it is defective. We mandate seatbelts. If there is a defective seatbelt, auto companies are held responsible. We mandate regulations on a lot of products, such as airbags. We mandate that products be safe and that certain rules and regulations be followed in mammography and many other products. Yet if there is a defective product, there is no waiver of liability. One of my friends who is with the ethanol caucus said: Well, we did it in Y2K, Mr. President; we waived the liability for the computer industry in Y2K. That is a laughable comparison. We gave a waiver of liability for 1 year on the Y2K problem because we knew it would be complicated. That set a precedent for every thousand years--every thousand years. We won't be around for the next one. But that is not what this is about. You have heard the expression ``solidarity forever.'' This is liability forever--liability from a product on which there are some problems already proven and there are perhaps more problems yet to be known. That is why there is a study in the bill. I think anyone in this body who cares about consumers, and about health, and about the children, and who cares about the environment, cares about our States and localities that will have to pick up the tab if there is a problem, will vote with us. I will be happy to yield to my friend for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. I do want to ask a question, but first I want to thank my colleague for this very modest amendment. I am stunned that our friends in the ethanol caucus have so far not acceded to it. This is my feeling, and I ask my friend if she agrees with me. As she has so eloquently pointed out, we need to build an infrastructure to receive this ethanol. We have to make sure we know what we are doing and we do not rush this. If we rush this and the Senator's amendment is not adopted, I think it is possible there could be huge hostility toward the use of ethanol, and when the people of our country get upset about taxation without representation--and that is how they are going to feel because, as my friend has pointed out, this is like a tax on gasoline for us--there is no telling what is going to happen in this country in places where they are hit. If we put that together with this terrible article that ran yesterday, ``Memos Show Possible Ethanol Price-fixing,'' with the legitimate issues of building an infrastructure, together with the fact we do not know the health impacts, if they rush this there could be an explosion of resentment in the country. There is a 2-year study on the health effects in the bill. Until that is done, until that is analyzed, this could take us into 2005. If we find out, for example, there is a way to mitigate some of the problems, we would have time to fix the infrastructure in a way to contain the problem. My question to my friend, in addition to thanking her for her leadership on this, is, does she not believe if we are all really on the level and we are being sincere, that this is a friendly amendment to both sides because it would, in fact, give us more time to accommodate for the use of the ethanol, would give us more information on the impacts of the ethanol, and it would allow us to do this in an orderly way without great disruption to the marketplace and at the pumps.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, understanding is that all time in opposition to my amendment has been used; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have 8 minutes to respond.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleague, she had every right to exhibit the feelings she did, when we are told on the floor: Don't come and tell us about price increases. Our State has gone through the proverbial nightmare with electricity prices because they were manipulated, because the supply was manipulated, because there was no transparency, because a few companies got together and did it to us. Now we are walking into this situation because of our colleagues who have a special interest in this. I understand it, but don't stand on the floor and say: Don't tell me about price increases. Your administration, the administration in charge, the Bush administration, has put out a chart. What I want to ask my colleague is this: Didn't Spencer Abraham put out a chart that showed us that this administration believes the price of gasoline in California will go up 9 cents? This is not something we are making up. Is that not a fact?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 30 more seconds so she can respond.

Mrs. BOXER. May she have 30 seconds to respond to my question, please?

Mrs. BOXER. If I could just close in 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I agree.

Mrs. BOXER. It is an amazing situation for those of us on the east coast or the west coast. We know we are outnumbered here. But as my colleague from California has told me many times, we must make the case and the record on this, because I can tell you right now, after living through the crisis we lived through in electricity, where we saw what happens when a supply is manipulated--the story in today's San Francisco Chronicle says: These memos show a disturbing trend of potential market manipulation by ethanol producers. . . . And the ink hasn't dried on this bill as it becomes law. Did you say a witch's brew? Is that what you said?

Mrs. BOXER. If you look at the components of ethanol--and we all hope and pray the health studies in the bill come out that it is terrific and there is no problem--just look at what ethanol does to another witch's brew. It may spread blooms of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene because ethanol may inhibit the breakdown of these toxic materials.

Mrs. BOXER. The safe harbor does not apply to MTBE.

Mrs. BOXER. Here is what it says. It is a letter addressed to Senator Daschle. Senator Daschle, water agencies sincerely appreciate the language phasing-out MTBE that is in the bill. But the bill's call for renewable fuels must not be pitted against the safety of drinking water. We oppose the ethanol mandate and safe harbor language in the bill, and we urge instead your support for waivers from the Clean Air Act's outdated oxygenate requirement. That is of course the larger picture. But the point is these water agencies have had to deal with the real problems of MTBE. Mr. President, 120 million people are served by these water agencies.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. Right now it is not mandated. We will wait and see what happens. But my argument is, if this bill becomes law, I don't want to see the oil companies--the makers of ethanol--get off the hook if there is a problem. It would be unprecedented. It would be the first time in American history that it would happen. And it would be coming at a time when we know that all the environmental and health questions have not been answered. Before some of my colleagues arrived, I went through all of the myths that I have been told relating to my case. To try to say we are just mandating it, and we must, therefore, waive liability--we don't do that to automobile manufacturers with seatbelts, airbags, or anything else. That is why I am very proud to have Senator Durbin's support and Senator Dayton's support because these Senators come from ethanol States. They understand that if they have this waiver in this bill, it clouds this whole issue. If anyone says to you they have the safest product in the world and they want a liability waiver, what does that mean? It means in their hearts that they are not so sure. Again, anyone who wasn't born yesterday knows that is not a good thing to do. I reserve the remainder of my time--probably 15 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. That is exactly the point of the blue-ribbon panel of the EPA. That is exactly what MTBE does as well. We are dealing with the potential that we could really have problems. No one hopes more than I do that in the end it is all going to be safe; that would be a winner. But we cannot stand here and say that. If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. We went through the electricity crisis. We know what happens when supply is manipulated. Unfortunately, what my friend said on the floor may become true. Manipulation is already being discussed on what to charge for ethanol. We lived through the MTBE tragedy. I was one of the leaders; I had the first bill to ban MTBE. In fact, a long time ago we got over 56 votes to ban MTBE. No one can say I have been reluctant to do that. As I said, I am not hostile to ethanol; I am very open to it, but at the same time we need to know what we are doing here. We need to be careful about the amount we are mandating so it isn't overwhelming but also difficult for people to charge exorbitant rates. We have to be careful that there are not a few suppliers and there is price manipulation. We have to be careful with that. We have to be careful that we have the infrastructure we need to bring in the ethanol. We must be careful so we are not giving a waiver of liability to the oil companies and give them safe harbor so they will not be held responsible, if, in fact, it turns out that this blue-ribbon panel and the scientist who Senator Feinstein quoted proves to be correct. We already know that ethanol makes the air cleaner, but it makes smog worse. We know these things. What we don't know is the long-range impact of what happens when we use it in the types of quantities in which we want to use it. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?

Mrs. BOXER. On your time. I want to reserve my time.

Mrs. BOXER. We understand that the oil companies are at the table with the ethanol people. They manufacture products. So everyone is at the table with the oil companies.

Mrs. BOXER. They blend it into the oil. We understand that.

Mrs. BOXER. If it comes off the time of the Senator. I have very little time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like the clerk to read the amendment, and after that I am going to yield briefly, without the time coming off my time, to several colleagues who want to lay down some amendments; also, that I would not lose my right to the floor, as they will make clear when they speak.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, the Senator has an hour under cloture. Every Senator does. If the Senator takes it on his time, that is fine.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment that I have been working on with several of my colleagues for some time now. The amendment is based on S. 1952, a bill that would reacquire and permanently protect certain leases on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California by issuing credits that can be used to develop energy resources elsewhere in the country. As you know, for decades, Californians have opposed oil and gas drilling along their coasts. We vividly remember the horrific oil platform rupture and oil spill that occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969. The ecological implications of that spill and the many other spills and leaks associated with the rigs that are currently along our coast are still being felt by Californians living along the coast. Unfortunately, 36 more leases off our coast remain eligible for oil and gas development and four additional leases remain in legal limbo. That is the last thing Californians want or need. In fact, the State of California has taken the Department of the Interior to court over whether the State has the ability to deny these leases. I strongly support the State in this effort and have joined Representative Capps of California in filing an amicus brief in support of the State's position. I believe every State should have the right to deny oil and gas development off their shores, as offshore activities inevitably impact the people and resources that are onshore. Last year, I reintroduced legislation, the Coastal States Protection Act, to place a moratorium on new drilling leases in Federal waters that are adjacent to State waters that have a drilling moratorium. That bill, however, addresses only future leases. With regard to the undeveloped existing leases off of California's coast, I believe a proactive approach is needed. These leases are in the midst of protracted and contentious litigation. I do not believe, however, that any interests are best served by waiting for the courts to sort this out. I have been approached by California lessees that want out of California. I want them out; the State wants them out; and the people of California want them out. Instead of hoping the courts reach the same solution, I think it vital that we seek legislative action to eliminate any threat of future drilling off California's shores and remedy this situation as soon as possible. That is why I have continued to work on this language with my colleagues to find a compromise that would protect the fragile environment off the California coast and at the same time redirect the financial resources for energy production to other areas where it can be used to meet our country's energy needs. In short, we are working to rid California of unwanted drilling, end a protracted legal battle in which nobody wins, and free the financial resources of the lease owners so that they may produce energy elsewhere. Our goal is a win-win situation. However, this is a new idea that has significant implications and we have not yet been able to work fully through all of the details. For that reason, I will not offer this amendment to the Energy Bill and will instead try to build consensus around this concept. I am committed to continuing to work on this issue with my colleagues because I know they too are committed to the same goal.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote against the energy bill because it is a bad bill for California and the nation. The bill includes an ethanol mandate for California that will raise gas prices. Cleaner air for California can be achieved without this mandate. Ethanol has been given a liability waiver if there are adverse consequences from its use. I tried to eliminate this waiver but lost on a 42-57 vote. We already know that ethanol may spread plumes of harmful chemicals, such as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene. So this is a dangerous waiver. The energy bill does not do enough to protect consumers from another electricity crisis. I worked to include a measure in this bill that would have guarded against future market manipulation by companies like Enron by increasing oversight of the electricity market. Companies would be far less likely to gouge consumers if these additional protections were in place, but the Senate refused to pass this vital measure. Also, I am disappointed that the Senate walked away from reasonable fuel economy standards and stronger air conditioner efficiency standards, which are so important to our environment and to lessening our dependence on foreign oil. The ``good guys'' have had few wins. We were able to keep the provision of the bill to provide tax credits for alternative energy sources and alternative fuel vehicles. And we defeated an attempt to open the Alaska Wildlife Refuge to drilling, for which I am very thankful to the grassroots of California for all their efforts. But drilling in Alaska did get 46 votes, and I am concerned that with the bill passing the Senate, drilling in Alaska may not be dead in the conference committee. In conclusion, the bill does more harm than good for the people of California.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention an exceptional person--Chauncey Veatch, a teacher from Coachella Valley High School in Thermal, California. He teaches world history, government and ninth-grade career preparation at Coachella Valley High School. He also does much more. He has taught English as a Second Language and citizenship classes in evening adult school. He revived the high school's cadet program, which has grown to 170 students. And he is often found with his students and their families outside of school in the community. Although he has only been teaching since 1995, after 22 years of service in the U.S. Army, Mr. Veatch has become a mentor and an inspiration not only to his students, but to other teachers as well. While he has never sought recognition, Chauncey Veatch was selected last year as California Teacher of the Year. More significantly he was recently honored at the White House as the 2002 National Teacher of the year. Chauncey Veatch believes in his students and demonstrates that belief to them every day. The result is they believe in themselves. Their success in school, and in life, is remarkable. California is extremely proud of Chauncey Veatch. I am honored to pay tribute to him. As National Teacher of the Year he will travel for a year as an education ambassador. I encourage my colleagues to join me in wishing Chauncey Veatch continued success as he spreads his positive message across our nation and beyond and as he continues his exceptional teaching.