Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. What we are saying is, for routine pesticide spraying in our national parks where children play and pregnant women are present, that the Park Service should use the least toxic pesticides. In other words, for routine use, don't use pesticides that are known carcinogens, probable carcinogens, or that are toxic to the nervous system. These pesticides are identified by EPA as ``those which pose the greatest risk to public health.'' I would like to place into the Record a June 30, 2000 letter from EPA to my colleague Senator Bond where EPA states that fact.

Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Contrary to statements you have heard today, EPA is not opposed to my amendment. Now, the Senate is already on record as voting for this before by a vote of 84-14. I hope we will see that type of a vote today. I just have to say this. There are scare tactics being used that say if there is an emergency, they could not use the highly toxic pesticides targeted by my amendment. Untrue. We have drawn up this amendment in such a way that only applies to the routine, preventive use. So please support us. The children in this country are counting on us to protect them. The National Academy of Sciences has told us that children are vulnerable to the dangers posed by the pesticides targeted by my amendment. Most important, the NAS has told us that current EPA standards don't protect our children from those dangers. At a minimum, we should protect our children. Please vote aye.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have no problem with the Bond-Lincoln amendment, but it does nothing. All pesticides that are on the market today are approved by EPA. There are none that are not. This is a sham amendment to kill my underlying amendment, which already passed this Senate 84-14 when I offered it on the Department of Defense Appropriations bill. Simply put, what we are saying is, for preventive and routine application of pesticides in national parks--where children play--don't use the most toxic pesticides, those that are identified by the EPA as known or probable carcinogens, acute nerve toxins or organophosphates, carbamates or organochlorines. EPA has identified these pesticides as those ``which appear to pose the greatest risk to public health.'' In a June 13, 2000 letter, EPA states that it ``strongly supports the goal'' of my amendment. EPA supports what we are trying to do because they have a mission, which is to protect kids. While it's true that the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 required EPA to ensure that its standards protect children, the fact is, EPA is not implementing this provision consistent with congressional intent. EPA has only applied the ``safety factor'' referred to by my colleague from Arkansas in nine--just nine-- of the thousands of cases it has reviewed. EPA is currently being sued because it is not enforcing this important provision. So what we are saying is, for the preventive and routine application, do not use these highly toxic pesticides unless there is an emergency, because children are not adults--they are rapidly growing, they are rapidly changing and they are, as a result, uniquely vulnerable to these toxins. In its report, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, the National Academy of Sciences tells us that children are uniquely vulnerable to the exact toxins targeted by my amendment. The NAS also tells us that current EPA standards ``could result in the permanent loss of brain function [in children] if it occurred during prenatal or early childhood period of brain development.'' I am voting for the Bond amendment. And I am coming right back with my first degree amendment to protect children from these dangerous pesticides. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I do not know if the Senator has mentioned this, but it seems to me this Republican Congress wants to take care of the top 2 percent of income earners in this country; and as far as the other 98 percent, they don't seem to care. Why do I say that? Because you have to look at the action. I ask the Senator to again hold up that chart. What is happening here? If you asked the average person in the higher income brackets, who is doing so well in this particular time--thanks to the policies, I would say, of the Clinton-Gore team, supported by those of us in Congress--they don't need to get back $23,000 a year. They are doing extremely well. Does my friend think it is time to take a little of this emotion--I watched the debate when Senator Feingold offered his amendment to exempt estates of any taxes up to $100 million. I thought at least on that point our friends on the other side could join hands with us. But no, the emotion on the other side of the aisle, defending the people, the ``poor'' people who are worth more than $100 million, was so powerful that I only wished we could take a tenth of that emotion and address it to the minimum wage and prescription drugs and good public education. I wonder if my friend noted the strong emotion and feeling on the other side of the aisle when it came to defending and protecting the wealthiest in this country, rather than the 98 percent of the people who need it. Did he take note of that?

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill for agreeing to my amendment to limit the use of toxic pesticides on U.S. Capitol buildings and grounds. My amendment prohibits the preventive use of pesticides containing a known or probable carcinogen, a class I or II acute nerve toxin or a pesticide of the organophosphate, carbamate or organocholorine class as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency. Such pesticides could be used, however, in the case of an emergency. Every year, approximately 7 to 10 million people visit the Capitol, many of them children. The National Academy of Sciences has found that children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of toxic pesticides, that current Environmental Protection Agency pesticide standards are not protective of children and that up to 25% percent of childhood learning disabilities may be attributable to a combination of exposure to toxic chemicals like pesticides and genetic factors. My amendment will help protect young visitors to Washington from the harmful effects of toxic pesticides by limiting the use of such pesticides at the U.S. Capitol. Mr. President, I thank the managers for their support and I hope that they will work to ensure that this amendment is preserved in conference. May I inquire of the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee if she will support the amendment in conference with the House?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will take but 2 minutes of the Senate's time, given that it is so late this evening. I thank the managers of the legislative appropriations bill for accepting this amendment. I think the Chair would be interested in it as well, given the fact that he is the chairman of the Environment Committee on which I proudly serve. This amendment merely says that we would limit the use of dangerous pesticide spraying here at the Capitol and on the Capitol Grounds where we have so many children and so many families visiting us every year. My amendment prohibits the routine use of highly toxic pesticides. Those are the ones that contain known or probable carcinogens. They are acute nerve toxins and others that contain highly toxic chemicals. We do permit the spraying of such highly toxic chemicals in the rare case of an emergency. If there were a sudden emergency, if there were an outbreak where we needed to go to those highly toxic pesticides, under my amendment we would be allowed to do that. But for routine spraying, we would go to the mildest forms of these pesticides, the ones which are classified by the EPA as having the greatest risk to public health. I could cite studies that show how vulnerable children are to these various compounds. Children are not little adults. They are changing; their bodies are changing. They react very badly to these toxic chemicals. Seven to ten million people visit the Capitol and surrounding buildings every year. A million take guided tours of our historic buildings. We don't know how many of those are children, but just by looking at the crowds, quite a number are. I know in my office alone-- and I am sure the Chair has thousands of youngsters visiting in his office--we studied it, and we have visits by over 33,000 school-age children every year. I think by adopting this amendment, we are setting a valuable example here at the Capitol that I hope all the State capitols will follow. We will begin to see that we can in fact control these pests in a way that is much more friendly to our children. In closing, there is a wonderful organization in California named after a beautiful little child who died of environmental causes several years ago. Her parents founded this organization. It is called CHEC, the Children's Health Environmental Coalition. They are the ones, years ago, who got me interested in this area. What we are trying to do on every bill that we can is to set this example and say we won't be using this highly toxic form of controlling pests. Tomorrow I will have a debate with one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am trying to offer a similar amendment to the Interior bill, but we may get into a bit of a debate then. Tonight is the night for me to say thank you to you, Mr. President, for your indulgence, and to the managers who are here late this evening handling this. I will yield back my time, and I expect we will have a voice vote and I would like to be present for that, if we could do that. I yield back my time and ask that we have a voice vote at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER. These editorials are in favor of roadless protections. The two Senators from New Mexico have offered us a great service because they have essentially, by their amendment, stopped us from a very controversial amendment that was antienvironment, that the administration would have been very opposed to, and may well have caused a veto of this bill. I thank them again. I say to my friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, I hope he will not bring this back to us. I think it would drive a wedge into the heart of our environmental heritage. I hope that will not happen. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. All right. Mr. President, I have such a good feeling about Interior appropriations bills. My friend, Senator Byrd, and Senator Domenici and Senator Gorton have worked hard on this Interior bill. For California it is so important. It is wonderful. I just got a reminder note from Senator Byrd on the wonderful things in this bill, for which I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Funding for the historic Presidio, for Lake Tahoe, so many others, the Manzanar historical site. For those of you who may not remember, it was the site where Japanese-Americans were essentially interned. We are going to make a monument out of it. So when I see an antienvironmental rider come on this beautiful bill, it is always distressing because, to me, the Interior appropriations bill, it seems to me, should be a positive statement of good things that we are doing for the environment. So when I heard a rumor that Senator Craig would offer his amendment, I decided at that time I would try to talk the Senate out of adopting it. And this has become unnecessary. So let me quickly say, I am pleased that what is before us does nothing to stop this roadless policy from going into effect. As Senator Wyden has stated, there have been countless meetings on it. The fact is, the roadless areas are the remaining gems of a forest system that has been degraded by centuries of logging and other types of heavy use. If we look at the big picture, we are really talking only about setting aside 2 percent of all our land in this country as roadless areas. What an important thing that is for us to do because it will in fact preserve our beautiful, priceless environment for future generations and preserve the fishing industry, stop erosion. It is a very important environmental initiative. So there is no misunderstanding, we know there are many inroads into these roadless areas. In the next 5 years alone, we are going to see more than 1,000 miles of roads inventoried. We are moving into these pristine areas. At some point, we have to say enough is enough in terms of destruction of our natural wilderness and our wonderful natural heritage. I think the U.S. Forest Service has taken a bold and positive step forward with its effort. I am very glad that nothing in this bill will stop them. Let me cite a couple of poll numbers. A recent poll done by some pollsters from the other side of the aisle found that 76 percent of the public supports the protection of roadless areas, and in my home State, asking Republicans and Democrats that question, 76 percent of Californians support roadless policies. We have editorials that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Oregon because everything he said speaks for me. I will be brief, but I think it is important that I put some comments into the Record because I have a sense that perhaps Senator Craig may be back with a similar amendment at another time, and I think it is important to lay the groundwork for why I would not support it at that time. I do support what Senators Domenici and Bingaman have brought us. I compliment them for bringing this to us. I know they have been very careful not to do anything in this amendment that would, in fact, stop any environmental rules from going forward, in particular the roadless rule that we are in the midst of promulgating. I will be supporting the Domenici-Bingaman amendment. I am pleased in the way it has been presented. It is, in fact, a substitute for the Craig amendment. Let me ask my friend from New Mexico, does he want to have the floor?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Durbin amendment to the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill is a common sense proposal that will ensure that a National Missile Defense system is properly tested before it becomes operational. President Clinton is expected to make a decision in the next few months on whether or not to begin the deployment of a National Missile Defense system. He has said that the decision will be based on four criteria: the readiness of the technology, the impact on arms control and our relations with Russia, the cost of the system, and the threat. Based on these criteria, I do not believe that a decision to deploy should be made at this time. This amendment deals with just one of these criteria, the readiness of the technology. It says that the National Missile Defense system should be tested against realistic decoys and other counter-measures before it becomes operational. Initial operating capability is now scheduled for 2005. Let me be clear, this amendment would not prevent a deployment decision this year, nor would it delay the deployment of the system. Mr. President, this is no different from school. if you cannot pass the exams, you cannot graduate. In this case, if NMD cannot pass a test against realistic counter-measures, it will not be made operational. There will be no social promotion of missile defense. The strategic implications of this system are too great. We do not want to make a system operational that we are not sure will work against an incoming warhead. Now the opponents of this legislation might say: Senator Boxer, this amendment is unnecessary. The U.S. would never make a missile defense system operational that wouldn't work. Well, in 1969 the U.S. made a decision to deploy the Safeguard missile defense system to defend U.S. missile against incoming Soviet missiles. This system would have used Spartan missiles armed with small nuclear warheads to intercept incoming ICBMs. On October 1, 1975, after spending $6 billion (over $20 billion in today's dollars), the first ABM site became operational at Nekoma, North Dakota. Five months later the project was terminated. Why was the project terminated? Because it didn't work. There were at least two major problems with the Safeguard system. First, its radars were vulnerable to destruction by Soviet missiles. Destruction of these radar systems would blind the defensive system. Second it was found that when the nuclear warheads on defending Spartan missiles were detonated, these explosions themselves would also blind the radar systems. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that it is important for the system to work before it is made operational. So why is the Senator from Illinois concerned about countermeasures? A September 1999 National Intelligence Estimate warned that emerging missile states would use counter-measures. Let me quote from the unclassified version of the report: Many countries, such as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq would rely initially on readily available technology--including separating warheads, spin-stabilized warheads, warhead reorientation, radar absorbing material, booster fragmentation, low power jammers, chaff, and simple balloon decoys. It goes on to say that ``Russia and China each have developed numerous counter-measures and probably are willing to sell the requisite technology.'' Many of our best scientists have said that the planned NMD system would be defeated by counter-measures. An April 2000 report released jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and MIT Security Studies Program found that ``the current testing program is not capable of assessing the system's effectiveness against a realistic attack.'' So Mr. President, this is an important amendment. It would ensure that our NMD system is tested against realistic counter-measures and require detailed reports from the Secretary of Defense and the Independent Review Panel which is headed by retired Air Force General Larry Welch. I congratulate my friend, Senator Durbin, for offering this important amendment and I urge the Senate to adopt it.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I answer that question in this way: I was discussing with another Senator a conversation he had with a very wealthy man who had made hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars, in the course of his lifetime in this country. Maybe this person is unusually kind and good hearted. This person was saying to him: This great country made it possible for me to have this kind of accumulation of wealth, which is far beyond what any of my heirs need to have. He can take care of his heirs for generations to come. He said: But I have to admit that I earned all this money because a lot of folks worked for me, and those people got up every day. They did not become millionaires, but they did fine, and I want to make sure that, yes, I can help their kids. That is what happens with an estate tax. How do we spend it? We defend the country for those kids. We help with education. We help with health research. We may find the cure for Alzheimer's for one of Bill Gates' future generations because of the funds we are able to put into health research. Our friends on the other side of the aisle, in the name of helping ordinary people, are ignoring the fact that the Democratic alternative--which at this point we do not have permission to offer but I am very hopeful we will get that chance; it would be wonderful; they can support our alternative. They can ease the burden on the small family farms. They can ease the burden on the small businesses. They can ease the burden on couples who have accumulated wealth through, say, buying a house, for example, which went up greatly in value, such as they have in California. I do not want those kids to have to sell the home. That is why I am supporting the Democratic alternative. We have an excellent alternative that costs less than half of what theirs does and allows us to help people pay for college. It will help grandmas and grandpas get prescription drugs. If our friends on the other side of the aisle really want a bill to become law, they should join hands with us because President Clinton said he will sign that bill. He will not sign the bill that he believes is helping people who are worth billions of dollars.

Mrs. BOXER. One of our colleagues was saying he was visited by an extremely successful gentleman who was worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps as much as $1 billion. The gentleman was discussing with this particular Senator this repeal of the estate tax for the wealthiest in our Nation, for the billionaires, if you will, for the most wealthy among us. This very wealthy person was making the point that he was not for this repeal for the very wealthy. He said we could fix it for some of the family farmers, the small businesses, with which, by the way, Democrats on the whole have agreed. But he said: Do you know how I made my money? A lot of people have worked for me. He said: Those people have worked really hard for me. They didn't grow up to be millionaires. They got up every day, and they worked for my business. He said, in a sense, if his children had to pay some of the inheritance back, and we took the funds here and put them into education and job training and health care and prescription drugs, he would feel pretty good about it. Now, granted, this is a type of a person you do not run into that often. Most people are not that selfless. But I think that gentleman really put it out there for us to contemplate. This is the greatest nation in the world. With a good idea, people can come up from poverty and they can make it to the top. Their heirs perhaps may not be that hard working, but maybe they are. But the fact is, this gentleman has focused on this, to say to this great country: I want to see it continue to be great. There is a notion about that, that this gentleman, I believe, has focused upon. I offer that up to my friend because he points out how much work we have to do for ordinary people who get up and face problems every day. It seems to me to be a very small price to pay, for very few people at the very top who have, in a sense, made it mostly because of these hard-working people, that their estates give back a little bit to this great country to defend itself, to be able to afford to educate its young, et cetera. I want my friend to just comment on that.

Mrs. BOXER. We had testimony from parents and teachers who said sometimes parents are dropping their kids off at places where one would not want to drop a pet off, let alone a child.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I believe under a previous order I will be next to speak.

Mrs. BOXER. It is out of control.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, 25 percent of the tax, as I understand it, goes back to our States.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. As we have it now, it is Senator Wellstone first and myself second. I would defer to our ranking member and the chairman to work this out. If you could take that into consideration, I will not object to the request.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask my friend, Senator Dorgan, after the party luncheons, if he intends to continue to speak.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I know Senator Wellstone has been here a long time, and I have been here a long time. Is there any way we can work out an order of recognition when we come back after the conference lunches? I ask Senator Roth if that would be possible.