[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4608-S4609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 855. A bill to protect children and other vulnerable 
subpopulations from exposure to environmental pollutants, to protect 
children from exposure to pesticides in schools, and to provide parents 
with information concerning toxic chemicals that pose risks to 
children, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Publc Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to protect 
children from the dangers posed by pollution and toxic chemicals in our 
environment. The Children's Environmental Protection Act, (CEPA), is 
based on the fact that children are not small adults. Children eat more 
food, drink more water, and breathe more air as a percentage of their 
body weight than adults. Children also grow rapidly, and therefore are 
physiologically more vulnerable to toxic substances than adults. This 
makes them more susceptible to the dangers posed by those substances.
  How is this understanding that children suffer higher risks from the 
dangers posed by toxic and harmful substances taken into account in our 
environmental and public health standards? Do we gather and consider 
data that specifically evaluates how those substances affect children? 
If that data is lacking, do we apply extra caution when we determine 
the amount of toxics that can be released into the air and water, the 
level of harmful contaminants that may be present in our drinking 
water, or the amount of pesticides that may be present in our food?
  In most cases, the answer to all of these questions is ``no.'' In 
fact, most of these standards are designed to protect adults rather 
than children. In

[[Page S4609]]

most cases, we do not even have the data that would allow us to measure 
how those substances specifically affect children. And, in the face of 
that uncertainty, we generally assume that what we don't know about the 
dangers toxic and harmful substances pose to our children won't hurt 
them. We generally don't apply extra caution to take account of that 
uncertainty.
  CEPA would change the answers to those questions from ``no'' to 
``yes.'' It would childproof our environmental laws. CEPA is based on 
the premise that what we don't know about the dangers toxic and harmful 
substances pose to our children may very well hurt them.
  CEPA would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set 
environmental and public health standards to protect children. It would 
require EPA to explicitly consider the dangers that toxic and harmful 
substances pose to children when setting those standards. Finally, if 
EPA discovers that it does not have specific data that would allow it 
to measure those dangers, EPA would be required to apply an additional 
safety factor, an additional measure of caution, to account for that 
lack of information. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 
included my amendment to require EPA to set drinking water standards at 
safe levels for children. All of our environmental laws should reflect 
the special needs of children. CEPA would ensure that children's health 
risks are properly taken into account.
  This process would, I acknowledge, take some time. So, while EPA is 
in the process of updating the standards, CEPA would provide parents 
and teachers with a number of tools to immediately protect their 
children from toxic and harmful substances.

  First, CEPA would require EPA to provide all schools and day care 
centers that receive federal funding a copy of EPA's guide to help 
schools adopt a least toxic pest management policy. CEPA would also 
prohibit the use of dangerous pesticides--those containing known or 
probably carcinogens, reproductive toxins, acute nerve toxins and 
endocrine disrupters--in those areas. Under CEPA, parents would also 
receive advance notification before pesticides are applied on school or 
day care center grounds.
  Second, CEPA would expand the federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 
to require the reporting of toxic chemical releases that may pose 
special risks to children. In particular, CEPA provides that releases 
of small amounts of lead, mercury, dioxin, cadmium and chromium be 
reported under TRI. These chemicals are either highly toxic, persist in 
the environment or can accumulate in the human body over many years--
all features that render them particularly dangerous to children. Lead, 
for example, will seriously affect a child's development, but is still 
released into the environment through lead smelting and waste 
incineration. CEPA would then require EPA to identify other toxic 
chemicals that may present special risks to children, and to provide 
that releases of those chemicals be reported under TRI.
  Third, CEPA would direct EPA to create a list of recommended safer-
for-children products that minimize potential risks to children.
  Finally, CEPA would require EPA to create a family right-to-know 
information kit that would include practical suggestions to help 
parents reduce their children's exposure to toxic and harmful 
substances in the environment.
  My CEPA bill is based on the premise that what we don't know about 
the dangers that toxic and harmful substances pose to our children may 
very well hurt them. It would require EPA to apply caution in the face 
of that uncertainty. And, ultimately, it would childproof our 
environmental laws to ensure that those laws protect the most 
vulnerable among us--our children.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______