Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Kim Dae-jung, the President of South Korea, on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for 2000. This award is well-earned for a great leader whom many call the ``Nelson Mandela of Asia.'' President Kim's life-long dedication to peace and reconciliation is evident in the fact that he had been nominated for this award on 14 different occasions. Last Friday's announcement made President Kim his nation's first Nobel laureate, a source of great pride for the people of South Korea. Kim Dae-jung has led an extraordinary life, highlighted by an unwavering commitment to democracy. In fact, throughout his career, President Kim has been willing to risk his own life in standing up for the principles that allow South Korea to be the great nation it is today. President Kim has indeed paid a heavy price for speaking out against totalitarian rule. Shortly after his first run for President in 1971, Kim was nearly killed in a car accident that many believed to be an assassination attempt. Two years later, he was kidnapped by South Korean agents, ostensibly because he was perceived as a threat to the status quo. He would have been killed, had the United States not intervened. In the years that followed, President Kim survived jailings, house arrest, exile and numerous beatings. Three years ago, President Kim campaigned on an innovative, open approach to reconciliation with North Korea, which he called the ``sunshine policy.'' This policy of building ties with the North is on a scale that has not been seen in the history of postwar Korea. After winning the election, President Kim, a forgiving and religious man above all, pardoned the former military rulers who tried to kill him as his first act in office. He has also been a positive force for South Korea's economy which was at a low point when President Kim was elected. The South Korean economy grew by 10.2 percent in 1999 and is projected to grow by 6 percent in 2000. President Kim's ``sunshine policy'' culminated in a June summit between the leaders of North Korea and South Korea. The summit was a success, and set a tremendous precedent for the relationship between the two countries. Speaking of the meeting, President Kim said, ``the Korean people are one; we have a common fate. There is nothing we cannot do if we make steady efforts with good faith and patience.'' The possibility for continued conversation between North and South gives me great hope that the two sides have taken the first steps to a true and lasting peace. The rebuilding process between the Koreas has been enhanced by several small but meaningful achievements. North Korea and South Korea have pledged to work on rebuilding roads and rail lines between the two countries. Earlier this summer, a brief reunion occurred of families separated by the Korean war 50 years ago. Just last month, the entire world was moved when the North Korean and South Korean teams marched together in the opening ceremonies of the Sydney Olympics. I had the opportunity to meet President Kim in 1986 when he was under house arrest. I was very moved by his courage and faith and thought that he would some day lead his beloved nation. It is with great happiness that I take this opportunity to congratulate Kim Dae-jung and the people of South Korea on this historic occasion.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his eloquent remarks. He is a leader on environmental issues in the Senate. It makes me feel really good that he came over. I want to again try to set the record straight. Senator Bond said a letter is on its way from the EPA saying the California site is not in fact affected by the language in the bill regarding dredging. We have called them again. We called the general counsel last night. I told my friend from Missouri. They tell us that no such letter is coming. Be that as it may, whether the letter comes or it doesn't come, the fact is if it does not affect California--and I hope he is right--I say to my friend, if he gets that letter, I will be very grateful. It is a bad situation because the language, in fact, we believe will really slow down the cleanup of Superfund sites. That is why you have Senators Moynihan and Schumer concerned about the Hudson River. That cleanup will be stalled. As my friend, Senator Mikulski, said--she calls me the gentlelady from California. She is the gentlelady from Maryland. That goes back to our House days. Senator Mikulski pointed out that she said these riders are less draconian. I believe that. They are less draconian. They are still bad, and they don't belong on their otherwise terrific bill. They do harm. My friend points out that it is very clear the language said this will wreck the public health--no delay. It doesn't say ``affect'' the public health or the environment. When you have an effect on the environment by the fish eating DDT, you do not have to be a rocket scientist; if the fish eat DDT, it it is bad for humans. When do you prove that? It may not come down the line much longer. I know my friend worked very hard on this. She had people in the room whom she trusted. But, again, I don't believe the administration sought out these riders. My friend is right; it was the House Members who did. They simply don't belong here. It would be very simple for us to agree to this sense of the Senate. I think it would be helpful because my friends say they don't want to delay these cleanups. I want to make one point about science. Listen very carefully when people stand up here and say it is silly science and we must act on science. The EPA and the National Academy of Sciences acted on science with their new rule on the arsenic standard. Guess what. They are calling this silly science. This is the National Academy of Sciences. They say arsenic is very dangerous. The bottom line is you can't seem to win around here. You get a report done by the National Academy of Sciences, and they say you have silly science; forget about it; throw it away. When you don't have the report, they say you can't act. As my friend pointed out, there have been many studies done by the National Academy of Sciences on port dredging as a way to get rid of these contaminants. We didn't know they were life threatening and dangerous. We know that now. I hope we will have a good solid vote on these amendments. I thank my colleagues. I retain 30 seconds.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on my side?

Mrs. BOXER. Would you let me know when I have 1 minute remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It is a sense of the Congress and says the following: It is the sense of the Congress that the Environmental Protection Agency should move swiftly to clean up river and ocean sites around the Nation that have been contaminated with PCBs, DDT, dioxins, metal, and other toxic chemicals in order to protect the public health, safety, and the environment. I think this is very straightforward. I think we should all join hands and support the amendment. Why do I think we need it? There is report language in this bill that we believe delays the cleanup of these sites. The managers say, no, they don't think it will result in delay. If that is the case, then why can't we all join hands and support this sense of the Congress? My goodness; we ought to protect our environment in this way. It seems to me if we have PCBs, if we have DDT with an ocean environment, a bay environment, or river environment, it is going to harm and it is harming the wildlife. That gets passed on to humans as the fish consume the DDT. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, do I have 1 minute to describe this amendment?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my amendment strikes two riders which are harmful and unfair to the American people. That is why 21 environmental groups support the amendment. And the League of Conservation Voters has indicated they are going to score this on their environmental scorecard. The first rider delays the setting of a new standard for arsenic in drinking water. The National Academy of Sciences tells us we must act on a new standard for arsenic in water because arsenic is now a known carcinogen. They urge swift action because they tell us that the old standard was based on 1942 data. Arsenic causes cancer. That is science. We should not delay. The second rider gags the EPA from informing communities that their air quality is harmful to their health. That is, to me, in a democracy, an amazing thing that we would stand here and allow this to happen, where the EPA would be denied the free speech to go into communities and say: You have to watch out for your health. Gag rules on clean air and delays on arsenic standards are bad riders. I hope we will strike them.

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

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

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friends for the opportunity for the brief debate. I say to my friends, these are not harmless riders. You can say they will ``defang'' and that is in the eye of the defanger. The bottom line is these are not harmless riders. It is not harmless to tell the EPA they are gagged from telling the people in my State and every other State that they live in a dirty air situation. That is what this rider does. It is not harmless to tell the EPA they cannot set a new standard for arsenic, a standard that essentially was set with data collected in 1942. I will not tell anyone if I was born then or not. That is an old standard, folks. We know it is much more dangerous. Finally, it is not harmless to delay the cleanup of PCBs and DDT and all the other hazardous toxins that sometimes get into the bay and the ocean floor and harm the wildlife and work up the chain. Please support the Boxer amendments.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 30 seconds added to my remaining 30 seconds.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. The Montrose Chemical Corporation holds the distinction of being the largest producer of DDT in the world. That is not a great distinction since we know what a poison DDT is. It discharges tons of DDT through storm sewers into the ocean off the Palos Verdes peninsula, and 100 tons of it sits on the ocean floor there. DDT is classified as a probable human carcinogen. It is thought to have severe liver and neurological impacts, and it has also recently been identified as a chemical which may promote breast cancer. We know DDT is causing harm to the ocean, i.e. Santa Monica Bay, because the DDT goes up through the food chain where it reaches the bald eagles. Of course, we know those bald eagles were brought to the brink of extinction by DDT, and we know it causes the eagle eggs to thin and to fail to successfully hatch. EPA estimates it will cost $150 million to restore the ocean where that dump is. The report language, in our strong opinion, with legal authorities across this country, tells us that it would prohibit the EPA from cleaning up this site until the NAS report comes out. And then even after that, Montrose will go back into court. Mind you, they have already spent $50 million fighting the cleanup. Their position is: Let the DDT just sit there. Don't cap it off. Don't do anything. In the meantime, it is poisoning the environment there. I don't understand why we do these things. When I talk to my constituents, their eyes roll. Arsenic, DDT, PCBs, these are not good things. If we could agree on one thing around here, it would be to get rid of them. We do everything we can to help people who are good actors to clean up their act, if they made a mistake. We have a State revolving fund. It stuns me that in this century we are still arguing over cleaning up arsenic out of the water, cleaning up DDT that is harming wildlife. As to this argument by Montrose that they should do nothing, imagine how strongly they feel. They have spent $50 million in order to do nothing. Why didn't they spend the $50 million cleaning up the site, and we would be rid of the DDT; we wouldn't have this poison moving up the food chain. What we hope to achieve--and we hope the managers will support this-- is a very simple sense-of-the-Congress amendment. It is so clear. What we say is: Look, we can't get your language out of the report. We understand you don't want to make changes because you don't want to go back to conference. All we are saying is, let's stand firm together. Let us pass the sense of the Congress. I will reiterate it, and then I will save my 5 minutes. I am hopeful others will come to the floor. It is the sense of the Congress that the Environmental Protection Agency should move swiftly to clean up river and ocean sites around the nation that have been contaminated with PCBs, DDT, dioxins, metals and other toxic chemicals in order to protect health, safety and the environment. Now, my colleagues say nothing in this bill would harm that. I hope, therefore, they will support this amendment. I think it is very important. Mr. President, I will take an additional 30 seconds to say Senator Levin wants to be added as a cosponsor. Senator Baucus was not personally consulted by anyone on this matter. That is clearing up the record, straight from Senator Baucus.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly oppose report language included in this conference agreement that will delay the cleanup of waters contaminated with toxic pollutants such as DDT and PCBs. We tried to work with my colleagues to change this language. We were unable to be successful. The language will remain in because you can't strike report language, but we have a sense of the Senate that is very clear. Basically the operative language, which was just read by the clerk, is: It is the sense of the Congress that the Environmental Protection Agency should move swiftly to clean up river and ocean sites around the nation that have been contaminated with PCBs, DDT, dioxins, metals and other toxic chemicals in order to protect public health, safety and the environment. The report language included in this bill--remember, this is an appropriations bill--prohibits the EPA from cleaning up river and ocean sites that are contaminated with these horrible pollutants until the National Academy of Sciences completes a study or until June of 2000, whichever comes first. That isn't the worst of it. The worst of it is, we believe this language opens up a whole new loophole, which is really going to mean we are going to have many more court suits. I will get to that in a minute. We think this language could delay the cleanup of at least six Superfund sites nationwide. One of them happens to be in California. The report language that is extremely troubling, which we were unable to remove, requires EPA to ``properly consider the results of the NAS study'' before moving forward on the cleanup of these sites. Anyone who knows anything about litigation knows a lawyer will have a field day with the phrase ``properly considered.'' What does that mean? You must properly consider before you move ahead with a cleanup? You could have a whole year discussing what that means, and that is exactly what the polluters are going to do. They are going to haul this Government into court just to try to get out of their responsibility. It will give polluters a hook to get into court and to litigate. I want to talk about a site off the Santa Monica Bay, the Montrose site. Mr. President, will the Chair inform me when I have 5 minutes remaining of my time?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wanted the amendment read because I think it is a pretty clear statement of what we ought to be doing; that is, expediting the cleanup of the Superfund sites. To respond to Senator Bond, the staff of Senator Baucus has informed me that they received one call and they objected to the riders. They don't believe Senator Baucus was ever called personally. We are going to check on that because I do want the record clear on it. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Moynihan, Schumer, and Kerry be added on as cosponsors of this amendment.

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

Mrs. BOXER. So I would sum up this way. We have a gag order in front of us in the rider that deals with EPA not being allowed to tell people they live in a dirty air district. It is for people to know that exposure to smog decreases lung function. It hurts our children with asthma, and it leads to emergency room visits. The courts have said clearly--and I have a direct quotation from the court--the court said: EPA has the right to tell people the truth about the quality of their air. This rider overturns that court decision. I hope we will have strong support for this amendment. I thank my friends.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my heart is so heavy this morning as we learn of the increasing tensions in the Middle East. I join my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, in expressing our condolences to those American families who are grieving at the loss of their children by an unprovoked attack on one of our ships off the coast of Yemen. We are not exactly sure who did this. We suspect that it was terrorism. But, as Senator McCain said on one of the shows this morning as I listened to him, we will find out, and we will respond. The world should make no mistake about that. This morning I also want to call on Yasser Arafat to take control of the situation in the Middle East. There has been an incident where four Israeli soldiers were in Ramallah--the Israelis say that they had taken a wrong turn. They certainly weren't provoking anything. They were captured, and taken to the Palestinian authorities and to a detention center. Then a mob overtook the center and killed at least two of them. The reports vary. One report I heard said there was a lynching. I don't know that is accurate, but one report said that. You have now no rule of law. It is very difficult to negotiate a peace agreement when there is no rule of law on one side of the equation. I had been closely following this. I was very hopeful yesterday. Things looked as if they were going in a better direction. The word was that Yasser Arafat was, in fact, calming his people down. But it is time for him to do this now publicly. It is one thing to quietly work behind the scenes; it is another thing to come out publicly and say enough of mob rule. As I say, I come here with a very heavy heart, but always hopeful that the goodness in people will overcome everything else. My heart is with the American families who will be grieving. My heart is with all the families in the Middle East who are suffering so much. I believe Dwight Eisenhower once said--I may stand corrected--that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it. I think people want peace. The vast majority of people want peace. How tragic it is that we can't seem to grasp that. I praise President Clinton and Vice President Gore for doing everything they can. I give them my best. I offer myself as someone who will do what I can. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. This is an area that we know is always a tinderbox. Yet we have faith that the peace process can get back on track. Breakdown of Camp David Peace Proposals

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have strong reservations about the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Conference Report that is before the Senate today. The concerns I have are the same that led me to vote against the Defense Authorization bill when it was before the Senate earlier this year. This conference report would increase Defense spending by more than $20 billion over last year's authorized level. It is $4.6 billion over the President's request. I am particularly troubled that most of this $4.6 billion increase is for weapons systems that were not requested by the Department of Defense. While I support many provisions of this bill, including a 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel and additional pay for troops on food stamps, I strongly believe that military spending is increasing at a rate beyond what is necessary to meet our security needs. Today, however, our military has been attacked--presumably by those who believe that acts of terrorism might somehow deter the United States from defending our interests of promoting peace and security throughout the world. At this time, it is important to vote for this bill to send a signal to the rest of the world that America stands united in the face of such threats and supports the men and women who so bravely serve this Nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I would like to retain my 3 minutes if I might, Mr. President.

Mrs. BOXER. What I would like to do at this time is yield 3 minutes to my friend, Senator Baucus, and 2 minutes following to my friend, Senator Lautenberg. Then I would have 3 minutes remaining, which I would retain.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, my amendment strikes two egregious anti-environment riders that have been attached to this appropriations bill. These riders are opposed by 21 environmental groups. There is a letter on everyone's desk from the League of Conservation Voters. They consider this to be extremely important. We also have another letter that came in this morning signed by the most respected environmental groups in the country supporting both of my amendments. We will try to put these on the desks. I will go through the groups in a moment. Twenty-one environmental groups oppose these riders. They say they believe these riders would ``jeopardize public health or the environment.'' The first rider deals with arsenic in drinking water. Let me take a moment to explain why I think this rider should be stricken. In the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendment of 1996, which the Senate approved unanimously, we told the EPA to update its drinking water standard for arsenic by January 1, 2001. We included this provision in the law because we learned from public health experts that the current standard for arsenic is severely dangerous and outdated. The standard was set in 1975, but it was based on public health data from 1942. What do scientists and health experts say about the dangers of arsenic? According to a National Academy of Sciences report, arsenic in water is known to cause cancer of the lungs, skin, and bladder. The National Academy of Sciences study and other studies also found that arsenic in drinking water may cause kidney and liver cancer. Arsenic is also known to cause other severe problems, including toxicity to the central and peripheral nervous system, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, skin lesions, and could cause birth defects and reproductive problems. Here is the national shocker. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that 1 in every 100 people who drink water containing arsenic at the current standard may well develop cancer caused by arsenic. This is a cancer risk that is 10,000 times higher than the cancer risk EPA allows in food. The National Resources Defense Council analyzed EPA's base data, and they looked at 25 States serving approximately 100 million Americans. They found that approximately half of those Americans are drinking water with arsenic levels that could cause 1 in 100 of them to develop cancer. The arsenic levels in those systems meet the EPA's outdated 50 parts per billion standard. As the NAS has said, the outdated standard ``does not achieve EPA's goal for public health protection and requires revision as promptly as possible.'' Let me repeat that. This is science. They base these rules on science. The sciences say set the standard at a lower level as soon as possible. In this rider we push the date back. It is a delay. I think it is a dangerous delay. The EPA has been working on this new standard for a long time. They have held numerous public hearings. Actually, they have been working on updating the standard since the early 1980s. It is time to do this. The EPA was told by Congress to move forward by January 1, and now this rider was slipped into this bill. I know my friends believed at the time that these riders were not that much of a problem. Whoever told them that--and I was not in the room--I believe was wrong. They are proven wrong by science. They have been proven wrong. Call me old fashioned, but I think when you play around with the arsenic levels in drinking water, it deserves to have the light of day. It should not be attached to some rider. I am the ranking member on the subcommittee on the Environment. My chairman of the full committee is here, Senator Baucus. We are working hard to make sure that drinking water is safe. Yet we push back the date. That is not the right thing to do. I appreciate my friends giving me 15 minutes of time, and I am going to give Senator Baucus about 5 minutes of that time when he is ready. I have saved 5 minutes. This is no way to legislate on an issue such as arsenic. In closing, before I yield my time to my friend, I want to talk about the other part of this amendment which deals with another egregious rider that has to do with clean air. The clean air rider is very important. It essentially would prohibit EPA from designating new regions of the country as being in violation of smog standards. In other words, it is a gag order on EPA, telling them they cannot, in fact, tell communities their air is dirty. This is a fact. I do not understand, again, why we would be doing this. There is a court case pending on the power of the EPA. It specifically says in that court case that EPA has the right to designate these areas and to tell people in these areas they are not meeting the smog standard. Administrator Browner made a very strong comment about this rider in the past. I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mrs. BOXER. Certainly. I say to my friend that it is a very simple amendment. It strikes two riders. We will send it over to the Senator at this time. It doesn't have any language. It simply strikes two of the riders. Mr. President, will you please tell me when I have 5 minutes remaining of my time?

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