Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have an amendment now pending before the Senate. I am very proud of this amendment. I have offered it on behalf of myself and Senator Nelson of Florida, and Senator Biden, and many other Senators who are very supportive of this amendment. The reason I had the clerk read the amendment in its entirety is because it is written in plain English and is very straightforward. Essentially it says that the Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency shall immediately put into effect a new standard, a new primary drinking water regulation for arsenic that will, in essence, protect our people from arsenic in their drinking water. The second part says that we will lift the suspension on the effective date for the community right-to-know mailers that were supposed to go out, letting people know how much arsenic is in their water. I hope all of us will agree, people have a right to know that. I want to talk a little bit about how this amendment came to be today, how we got on this road. Frankly, we should not be here. In the last administration, they set a new level for arsenic in water at 10 parts per billion. It was going to go into effect, and then this administration suspended it. What we are doing in our amendment today is not even saying go back to 10. I certainly hope they go to 5. But notwithstanding that, we just say: Put a new standard in place because the standard that is in place, as I talk to you tonight, is 50 parts per billion. We need to move this forward. Let me explain why this happened. I know I have 30 minutes. Will the Chair let me know when I have gone on for 15? I thank the Chair. What we see on this green chart is what this Senate passed last year in this very same bill. It said: The Administrator shall promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for arsenic not later than June 22, 2001. What happened? It didn't happen. They repealed the Clinton standard and went back to the 50 parts per billion standard which everyone agrees is way too high to drink our water in a safe fashion. This date slipped. In essence, we have a situation where the Congress said to the President: You shall do this. The President signed this. This was President Clinton. This was the law of the land. And yet the date slipped. I want to get into the reasons why this is so important, beyond the fact that we have gone back to the old standard and the President, in my view, did not have the right to do that. This is a chart I actually got from the House side where the House has passed a very strong arsenic amendment, even stronger than what we have before us. What you see on this chart is, the darker the red dot, the more arsenic in the water. You can see that there is virtually arsenic in almost all our States. There are some that are fortunate. They don't have it. But there is a huge amount of arsenic around the country. Why is this important? I know intuitively people would say arsenic is bad. We know that intuitively. But it is more than intuition. It is science. It is lots and lots of science. I want to put that on the record tonight. There is a Dartmouth study that came out in March of 2001: Arsenic Disrupts Critical Hormone Functions. That is what this study showed. It doesn't say ``it may.'' It doesn't say ``it might.'' It says it does. It disrupts critical hormone functions. What does this mean to us? It means increased risk of diabetes, increased risk of cardiovascular disease, increased risk of cancer. When we throw up our hands and we say, did you ever believe how much diabetes there is, how much cancer there is, what are the answers? We are starting to get the answers. Science is giving us the answers. This is one of the answers. Here is another one, another study, Chemical Research in Toxicology, an EPA study completed April 2001. They say: There is a direct link between arsenic and DNA damage. They didn't say there ``may be.'' They didn't say ``perhaps.'' They said there is. What does this mean to us? Increased risk of cancer, and no level of arsenic is completely safe. That is why the second part of our amendment is so crucial because it is the community's right to know. When you go to your mailbox under this part of the amendment, you will find out once a year how much arsenic is in your water. Here is another scientific study, done in Taiwan, very well respected, it appeared in the American Journal of Epidemiology. This is what they found: Compared to the general population, people who drink water with arsenic levels between 10.1 parts per billion and 50 parents per billion are twice as likely to get certain urinary cancers. It doesn't say ``maybe'' they are twice as likely. What does this mean? The U.S. drinking water standard for arsenic must be immediately set at the lowest possible level. That is what the Boxer-Nelson-Biden-Corzine amendment et al does. Let's look at the countries and the different levels they have of arsenic in their water. This is very instructive. This is an important chart because it shows where the countries of the world are in terms of arsenic levels in their water. What we find is the one with the least arsenic allowed happens to be Australia. That is 7 parts per billion. Then we go to the European Union where it is 10 parts per billion. Japan is 10 parts per billion. The World Health Organization is 10 parts per billion. Then you get up to where President Bush put us when he suspended the Clinton standard of 10. The Clinton standard of 10 was with the European Union and Japan and the WHO. But now we are with Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, India, and Indonesia. This is not where we want to be, I say to my friends. This is an amazing place for us to be as a nation that is the leader in science and technology and health care. So this is wrong on its face. Let's look at the cancer numbers pretty specifically. I have saved time for all my friends who are here. I said before that there is no safe level of arsenic in drinking water. We know that to be the case. But what we are trying to do is at least get a level that is achievable that we can accomplish and we can take credit for and get it done. If you look at this chart, it is kind of chilling. If you look at where we are on the Bush standard--50 parts per billion--1 in 100 of us will get cancer if we drink out of that water supply at 50 parts per billion. That is the Bush law right now. At 20 parts per billion, the cancer risk goes down to 1 in 250 people. At 10 parts per billion, it is 1 in 500. You are not altogether safe there either, but it is a lot better than the 50 parts per billion, which is 1 in 100. If you go to 3 parts per billion, the risk goes down more. I think this is very important. Let me tell you what one of the water districts is saying about this. It is the American Waterworks Association, the California-Nevada section. These are people who, you would think, would be fighting us, would not want to invest in getting the arsenic out of the water. They say: While the standard is in limbo-- By that they mean the Clinton standard was suspended and we have no new standard; it went back to the old standard of 50. They say: the enforcement deadlines are not. Now the systems affected are facing an unrealistic time line for compliance, which creates a handicap in meeting this critical health goal. They are upset that they have no number, they have no goal they have to reach. It makes it harder and harder for them to take action. By the way, they did endorse the 10 parts per billion level. In closing this part before I save a little time at the end, let me again say what happened when George Bush became President. A lot happened, but on this issue this is what happened. He took this little ``suspended'' stamp and suspended the 10 parts per billion standard that President Clinton had put in place after lots of scientific study. He also suspended--in some ways, to me, this is even worse. He suspended the community right to know. So not only did he suspend the Clinton standard at 10 parts per billion, but he suspended the Clinton community right-to-know provision that said if you live in a community--a rural community, an urban community, a farm community--you have the right to know if you have arsenic in your water, because if you have a baby in the house and that arsenic is up there at 30, 40, 50 parts per billion, watch out. If someone is sick with cancer, or AIDS, or has any type of heart condition, watch out. So he suspended everything good when it came to these rules. It is time we do something very good tonight. I have some good feelings about the response we are getting to this amendment. I am hoping for an overwhelming vote. I ask the Chair how much time I have remaining on my side.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleagues. I thank Senator Reid, Senator Daschle, my cosponsor, Senator Nelson, my other cosponsor, Senator Domenici, for his remarks, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Bond. I want to make a point, building on what Senator Bond said when he pointed out 63 Members voted to slip the date for the new standard until June 22, 2001. That is true. The problem is there was not a new standard. That is why we have this amendment, which is not a sense of the Senate. I want to express that point. I hope I do not jeopardize my vote, but it is a real law. It says the administration shall act immediately, and that is a term of art. They must act immediately to set the new standard and take into consideration the vulnerability of kids and the rest. This is real. It also says the community must have a right to know how much arsenic is in their drinking water. That will happen immediately. So this is real, and I hope it will survive the conference. I say to my friend, Senator Burns, who has left the floor, that I know it is much easier to say if it is naturally occurring it does not hurt us. Radiation from the Sun is naturally occurring and it hurts us. Arsenic hurts us. We have the latest, most prestigious Journal, the American Journal of Epidemiology, March 1, 2001. Based on a study in Taiwan following real people, it says: Compared to the general population, people who drink water with arsenic levels between 10.1 ppb and 50 ppb are twice as likely to get certain urinary cancers. We have the science. We know the science. I have talked to Christie Todd Whitman about this many times. When she was Governor of New Jersey, she suggested a 10-part-per-billion standard. Why would she do that? Because she wants to be with those countries that have a 10-part- per-billion standard. I think we need to look at these countries one more time. We are at 50 parts per billion. That is where George Bush has put us. We share that 50-parts-per-billion standard with Indonesia, India, China, Bolivia, and that great leader of public health, Bangladesh. We don't belong here. We belong in this tier: Australia, the European Union, Japan, and the World Health Organization. They are 10 parts per billion or less. This is a debate that I think has been good. I am very pleased that we have won some fine support from the other side of the aisle. I hope we will send a rip-roaring message to the President: Set the standard, set it low, set it fast. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, do I have 2 minutes remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. I would ask for a minute or two after Senator Mikulski.

Mrs. BOXER. I just need 1 minute of the remaining time. We have a couple minutes left.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator from Nevada, Senator Clinton raised a crucial point addressing her remarks to the Senator from New Mexico. Both Senators from New Mexico really worried about getting the funding to the local areas to do this infrastructure work. It is the Senator from Nevada who is pushing very hard, in a bipartisan way, for more funding to clean up these water supplies. When we take everything into consideration, I hope we will pass the Boxer amendment tonight. I know Senator Jeffords has spoken with Senator Reid about this, and we will be moving on this bill so we do authorize, I say to the Senator from New York, more funding for water company infrastructure repairs. I yield as much time as he would consume to the Senator from Nevada, retain the remainder of my time, and then I know the Senator from New Mexico wants to speak.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my friend from New York for bringing up a good point. I yield time to the Senator from Nevada.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield an additional minute.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Corzine and 3 minutes to Senator Clinton.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time remains on my side?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. See all this great bipartisanship.

Mrs. BOXER. And Senator Boxer.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I would like to try to summarize where we are and see if my leader, the majority leader, can confirm if this is accurate. I think the word of the day is ``delay.'' We are seeing an Agriculture bill, an emergency bill, being delayed. We are not going to be on it. We are going to have to debate a motion to proceed. For those people who don't know the rules of the Senate, you can invoke these rules and it can go slow. We are seeing a delay in getting help to our farmers; and we are seeing anything but a delay in the day we will have the Mexican trucks come barreling through our highways and byways when we should delay that until we have enough inspectors. We are only inspecting 2 percent of the trucks, and out of that 2 percent, 35 percent of the trucks are failing and a lot of them have no brakes. I will not reiterate the horror stories and nightmares we heard in the committee. Where we have a delay, we don't want a delay; that is, to help our American farmers. And where the other side is trying to do away with the delay is the day that we have trucks coming through our border into the interior of our country that are ill-equipped for those journeys. I wonder if my leader would agree that is where we are right now.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Then I will end my remarks and the Senator from Arizona can have the floor at that time. Madam President, I have listened to this debate, and I have participated in it. I believe, in light of Senator Torricelli's remarks, that if he was the only one in the Senate who felt strongly about this issue and how right you were on the issue, Madam President, he would stand and be proud. I want to make it clear that a lot of us do agree with you about the importance of passing your underlying language and your amendment that you offered to strengthen the safety of NAFTA trucks. As a member of the Commerce Committee--I am a new member--I had the honor of sitting through the hearing that I actually had requested that Senator Hollings hold on the issue of NAFTA trucks. I have nothing but the highest regard for former Congressman Mineta, now the Secretary of Transportation, but I believe very much--and this is with great respect--that he is not really ready to make January 1 the deadline to allow these trucks into the interior of the country. One of the things that happened at that hearing was one of the witnesses said something to the effect that those of us who were concerned on the safety issue were really against Mexico. I remember at the time Senator Dorgan, in a sense, chastised that particular witness and said: This is ridiculous. I said at the time, and I want to repeat now, that the reason I feel so strongly that the trucks coming through our country should be safe is to protect the people that I represent in California, 30 to 40 percent of whom are Mexican Americans. I want to protect all the people. I want to make sure, as Senator Torricelli says, truckdrivers who come through the border are rested; that they don't have any medical condition that might prevent them from driving for hours; that in fact we can test them for drugs as we do with our own truckdrivers. Your decal amendment that is so important would say that the truck companies in Mexico would have to comply with our safety standards, and they would be inspected in Mexico and not have situations that we have now where the trucks are stopped at the border and, by the way, 2 percent of the trucks coming in are stopped because we don't have enough enforcement. And as Senator Torricelli said, 40 percent of them fail; my figure is about 36 percent, but it is somewhere in that vicinity. And then I asked the inspector general, who appeared at the Commerce Committee hearing, why it was that we didn't send these trucks back. He simply said, ``because they have no brakes.'' I would not want to be the Senator in this Chamber who votes against Senator Murray's safety language and has to face the parent of a child who is killed, or a family of survivors of someone who is hurt or killed. I was at a press conference about a year ago where I was calling for tougher standards for our own trucks, our own drivers. We still have far too many injuries on our own highways, and we need to even tighten those up. What we are ready to do here with this loophole amendment offered by Senator Gramm is to dilute your provision and Senator Shelby's provision that would, in fact, simply ensure that we are ready for this phase of NAFTA. We cannot be so ideological, bow down at the altar of free trade, and blind ourselves to reality. If it means somebody makes a complaint against us, I want to be there, I say to my friend from Arizona. I will defend us. I will say to those folks sitting in judgment of us that we want our people safe on the roads. When I asked former Congressman Mineta, now Secretary Mineta, about this, he said the law says we cannot allow trucks on our roads that don't meet the standards. That is right, but if we can't enforce it, what good is it? If we can't enforce the law, what good is it? If we have a law, and we do, which says you can't walk into a supermarket and pull out a lethal weapon and threaten someone, but we never enforce it, and there are robberies going on all over the country and nobody is enforcing it and going after the bad guys, what good is it? So until we have enforcement mechanisms in place where all trucks are inspected either at the border or they have a decal before they cross, I am not afraid to fight for our right in a court that is looking at NAFTA. Senator Murray and Senator Shelby say very clearly that their provision does not violate NAFTA--does not violate NAFTA. The fact is, I happen to know that Senator Murray supports many free trade agreements. The Senator's State depends on free trade. Yet you are the one who has taken a considered approach to this. You have made sure your language doesn't interfere with NAFTA. You are simply saying that we want to make sure before these provisions go into effect, where these long-haul trucks can come in, that they, in essence, are compatible with our laws. What a straightforward, commonsense idea. I can't imagine how the American people could understand it if we would do anything less. We have to have the same standards, and we have to enforce the same standards. Therefore, I strongly support Senator Murray's amendment in the underlying bill, the decal amendment. I yield the floor at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be told when I have used up to 6 minutes.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will Senator Murray yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I am confused by that colloquy. It is my understanding that a Republican Senator, or, rather, two Republican Senators had asked the Democratic manager and, for that matter, I am sure the Republican manager, to discuss an underlying provision of the bill. That is what has been happening. As a matter of fact, that Republican Senator came out to thank Senator Murray for agreeing to sit and negotiate. Am I right on that point?

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. It goes through the story of a driver who came across the border and who was completely exhausted. The article says: It was sometime way after midnight in the middle of nowhere, and a giddy [truck driver] was at the wheel of 20 tons of hurtling, U.S.-bound merchandise. The lights of oncoming trucks flared into a blur as they whooshed past on the narrow, two-lane highway, mere inches from the left mirror of his truck. Also gone in a blur were [the driver's] past two days, a nearly Olympic ordeal of driving with barely a few hours of sleep. It is a harrowing story. The title of it is ``Mexico's Trucks on Horizon, Long-distance haulers are headed into U.S. once Bush opens borders.'' What the Murray language does in this bill is make sure, before this driver gets through the checkpoint, we can test him, we can talk to him, and we can tell him to get a rest. We can inspect his truck and see whether it meets the standards. That is why it is so important. Quoting from the article: A recent report by the U.S. Transportation Department said 35 percent of Mexican trucks that entered the United States last year were ordered off the road. . . . I was told 25 percent, but it looks like it is 35 percent of the trucks were ordered off the road. Now remember, we are only inspecting a couple percent, but out of that 35 percent were ordered off the road. In Mexico, no logbooks are required. They are required in the United States. The driver has to keep track of his hours and itinerary. It says this driver slept a total of 7 hours during his 3-day trip. I know that young people have good instincts, but I would say, if somebody sleeps for 7 hours on a 3-day trip, I do not want them driving next to a family in Washington State or Illinois or California or anywhere on our highways. It is a disaster waiting to happen. The Murray amendment is very important--the one pending--and the underlying language in the bill to make sure there is not a premature rush to say open the borders, everyone is coming in, until we have done certain important things. And those things are outlined in the Murray bill. I am going to go through what they are. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration must perform a full safety compliance review of the Mexican truck company, and it must give the Mexican truck company a satisfactory rating. And now with the added decal, we know those trucks will be inspected every 90 days. Federal and State inspectors must verify electronically the status and validity of the license of each driver of a Mexican truck crossing the border. It goes on. We are going to make sure, before we open up this border completely-- and right now what we are doing is we are allowing those trucks to drive just 20 miles from the border--before we open them up completely, they will be safe. They talk about, in this article, the fact that these drivers are taking stimulant pills. In this particular case, the driver said he did not do that; he just needed a few cups of coffee to stay awake. Actually, before this reporter went on this long-haul trip with the driver-- [The] vice president of Transportes Castores jokingly asked a Chronicle reporter . . . ``Do you want some pingas?'' ``Pingas'' is slang for ``uppers.'' So they did not even hide the fact that their drivers are using these pills. Then the driver is quoted--this is really an incredible story; that is why I put it in the Record--as saying: ``Don't kid yourself.'' He said this late on the third night. ``Sometimes you get so tired, so worn, your head just falls.'' ``Your head just falls.'' So here the driver is coming in because of a free trade agreement, and the President of the United States, George Bush, has said he is picking a January 1 start date for them to have complete access to our highways. And if it was not for the Murray language, I will tell you, I think I would--there is an expression of throwing yourself in front of a truck--I would not go that far, but I would certainly use every legislative tool I had to stop that from happening because we know how dangerous it is. The driver says--he has a religious statue in his truck-- ``Just in case, you know. The devil is always on the loose on these roads.'' They talk about the wide variety of dangers that these drivers face. So I would just have to say, in conclusion, that we have a very important set of standards that we have developed in our country for both drivers and for the trucks they drive. Therefore, when we allow a whole other set of trucks and a whole other set of drivers into our Nation, where, in that country, they have nowhere near our standards for the drivers and the trucks, we have to make sure that we can, in fact, check those trucks and check those drivers to make sure that we are not putting our citizens at risk. People who are for 100-percent free trade always say: Cheap goods, cheap goods for our people. And in many cases, it is true. But I will tell you, if you start losing a life on the road, and more lives than 1 or 2 or 10 or 100 or 1,000, it does not matter if you have a cheap T-shirt or a cheap appliance, or anything, if you cannot live long enough to enjoy it. So to those free trade advocates who absolutely come to this Chamber--and there is nothing they will see that will take them off their blind path of free trade--let me just simply say to them: You better imagine what could happen if we have a series of accidents where trucks do not have brakes, where drivers are exhausted and they are falling asleep at the wheel, where the trucks weigh 135,000 pounds, swaying on our freeways. This is crazy. In the name of free trade and George Bush's decision that January 1 is the magic date--not on my watch, Mr. President. Twenty-three percent of those trucks come into California. Not on my watch. Now, the House took more drastic action-- I would go so far as to support that--which simply says we are cutting off the money until we believe we are ready for this influx of trucks. Good for them over there. They are right. This is that dangerous. Once we have our regime in place, once we have these trucks inspected, once these drivers live by our rules, once we have enough enforcement, once we are ginned up at the border to do this right, I will be the first one here saying: good work, let's go. But my colleagues ought to listen to the IG and his comments about how ill-prepared we are as of this date to accept this kind of influx. So until we can guarantee the safety of these trucks and the condition of these drivers, until we can make those promises to our people, then I say that free access beyond that 20-mile border should not be granted. And until the Murray language is really carried out, I am going to do everything I can to make sure we do not allow in these kinds of truckdrivers who can barely keep their heads up. I am optimistic that our friends in Mexico will eventually adopt more rigorous standards. I am confident we will eventually be able to have drivers who are, in fact, not exhausted and not popping pills trying to keep awake. Eventually, it will happen. It will be good. I am happy to yield to my friend if he has a question. (Mr. EDWARDS assumed the chair.)

Mrs. BOXER. Unfortunately, I say to my friend, it has been a disaster. Although we have inspected approximately 2 percent of the trucks coming across, out of those, 35 percent have failed. They have failed the inspection, which means that either the driver doesn't meet our standards--he may be 18 years old or may have a medical condition-- or the truck itself fails--maybe it is 135,000 pounds or more than the 80,000 pounds. Prior to my friend walking in, I said I strongly support what Senator Murray is doing. I would even go further. I am glad her amendment takes us further. I commend her for what she has done. In terms of what the gentlemen told you in your office, if they have made that change, it is not a fact in evidence up until this point.

Mrs. BOXER. There is no question. Under the Murray language, she is very clear to state that the Federal Motor Carrier Administration must perform a full safety compliance review of the Mexican truck company, and it must give the Mexican truck company a satisfactory rating before granting conditional or permanent authority outside the commercial zone--meaning that 20-mile zone--and the review must take place onsite at the Mexican truck company's facility. That is absolutely accurate. Again, the best of all worlds would be--and it would be terrific--if in Mexico they upgraded their laws to conform with American laws. We cannot force that, but I say as a friend of Mexico--a good friend--that is what they ought to do because then their people would be safer and we would not have to have all of this enforcement activity. But until they have brought their laws up to our level in terms of the trucks and drivers, we must enforce. What I like about the Murray amendment--and I understand Senator Shelby had a hand in this amendment, and I thank him from the bottom of my heart because 23 percent of that traffic comes right into my State. Without this amendment--and just setting an arbitrary date is a frightening thought--all these trucks would be coming in and we can only inspect 2 or 3 percent of them. God knows, we all fear what could happen in our States--a devastating accident with trucks that don't have brakes, drivers who have fallen asleep at the wheel, et cetera.