[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 11, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5320-S5323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have come to the Chamber today to talk 
about an issue about which I have spoken before and will continue to do 
so until we turn around the current climate we are facing, which is a 
rollback of environmental protections for the American people.
  It is stunning to see what has happened to environmental regulations 
since administrations have changed. We have, fortunately, a group 
called the NRDC. I have a list of all the actions that have been taken 
by this administration since they took over. We have seen the average 
of one anti-environmental action every week since this administration 
took over.
  This chart is way too small for people to read, but it gives a sense 
of the situation. I have two charts like this. These are 100 rollbacks. 
Our Nation certainly is in a situation where we are so focused on 
meeting the challenges that hit us on September 11--and it is very 
understandable; we are so united on that--but what has happened in the 
course of that time is that without very much publicity, a lot of these 
regulations have moved forward.
  We face the circumstance where if we in the Senate and those in the 
House who care about the environment do not speak out, I fear for the 
future of our country.
  Why do I say that? Because when one says the word ``environment,'' it 
means many things, and one meaning is health and safety. For example, 
when this administration believed it was not so important that arsenic 
was in the water, finally the people woke up to what they were doing. 
Then when they said it was not so important to test poor kids for lead 
in their blood--even though we know if a child has elevated levels of 
lead in his or her blood, there is going to be a serious learning 
problem and illness problem, even problems of death--they went too far.
  It does not seem to stop them. In my State, they are against us as we 
are trying to protect the coastline. They are against us. They said to 
Florida: We will help you. But as to California, it is unbelievable. 
Interior Secretary Norton said people in California do not care about 
their coasts. Mr. President, I am here to say that is an insane 
statement if you look at the record.
  Since the seventies, when under the Carter administration they 
thought they would drill, we convinced Carter not to drill. We thought 
that problem was over. The State has a moratorium on drilling off our 
shores. The fact is, we have set up sanctuaries all along the ocean. 
This is a terrible statement and an example of how the Bush 
administration is so blinded by this idea that the environment does not 
matter, they will say things that do not make sense.
  My colleague from Illinois is in the Chamber, and I know he wants to 
add to this debate. First, I want to cover one more issue before I 
yield to him. I want to talk about one issue. It is called the 
Superfund.
  I think it is very interesting that the Presiding Officer, as well as 
Senator Torricelli, are two leading proponents for doing something 
about Superfund sites.
  The word ``super'' is a good word: You look super fine. The word 
``Superfund'' is not a good word because what it means is that we have 
sites all over this country that are filled with poison and toxins, and 
we need to clean up these sites.
  This chart shows there are national priority list sites in every 
single State but one. North Dakota is the only State. New Jersey 
happens to have the most. Pennsylvania is third. My own State has about 
104 sites, and we are second on the list.
  What I want to show my colleagues--and I hope the Senator from 
Illinois will pick up on this--is what is happening specifically to the 
Superfund program, which is such a popular program in this country. It 
cleans up these toxic sites. A lot of people live near these sites. 
Children live near these sites. It makes the sites safe, and it goes 
after the responsible parties, the polluters, and says the polluter 
pays, which is the basic premise of the Superfund program.
  Under Bill Clinton's administration, we saw a ratcheting up of the 
cleanup: 88, 87, 85, 87 sites in the last 4 years. We were all set to 
continue. We were a little disheartened when President Bush said he is 
only going to clean up 75 sites, but worse than that happened. Now they 
are saying they are only going to clean up 47 sites, and then 40. We 
are going back down. We are going back down to a level, frankly, that 
we have not seen in more than a decade.
  This is a horrible situation. I am proud that Senator Chafee has 
joined us, and we have bipartisan legislation to reinstate the 
Superfund fee so polluters will pay.
  I am going to show one last chart because this is so important. This 
idea of ``polluter pays to clean up their mess'' has been basic to this 
country for many years, since Superfund was set up in the 1980s, and it 
led us to a situation where the industry and the polluters were paying 
82 percent of the cleanup and taxpayers only 18 percent. That was where 
we could not find a party or we did not have enough funds in the 
Superfund trust fund.
  This is where we are headed under President Bush. I consider this 
administration the most anti-environmental that I have ever seen, 
frankly. I have been in Congress since 1982, with Senator Durbin, who 
is about to speak. In 2003, 54 percent of the cleanup in Superfund will 
be paid for by taxpayers; 46 percent by the industry that polluted. 
This is not a good trend for the American people, for the taxpayers, 
and that is why we have so much support for turning this around.
  I am proud to be the chair of the environmental team that Senator 
Daschle has appointed to point out the environmental record of this 
administration and how it is hurting the health, safety, and well-being 
of the American people.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to my friend for as long as he would 
like.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my friend for her leadership on the environmental 
issue, and I would like to get back to it, but I would like to ask the 
Senator to reflect with me for a minute on the larger issue, an issue 
of corporate responsibility, whether U.S. businesses will accept their 
responsibilities as part of America, their responsibility not only to 
their workers, their investors, and shareholders, but the consumers and 
America at large.

  Time and time again, what we find with the Bush administration is 
they turn their back and ignore this issue of corporate responsibility. 
We now have a ``Bermuda Triangle.'' This Bermuda Triangle is sucking in 
American jobs and American tax dollars as more and more corporations 
are moving their headquarters overseas. As they move their headquarters 
to Bermuda to avoid paying America's taxes, they are shirking their 
corporate responsibility to the United States.
  When the Stanley Tool Company decided to move from the United States 
and put their corporate headquarters in Bermuda, did we hear any 
protests from this administration that they were shirking corporate 
responsibility? Not at all.
  We saw in the paper yesterday that we now have the Norquist black 
list. Grover Norquist, one of the leading gurus of the Republican 
Party, has said he is creating a black list of those entities, 
organizations, and people in Washington who will not be acceptable and 
welcome in the Bush administration. They want their close circle of 
corporate friends to have entre to persuade this administration to move 
in the worst directions. They do not want to hear both points of view, 
the Norquist black list, part of this Bush administration philosophy.
  It really comes through graphically on this issue of the Superfund. 
Who should pay for the toxic mess? The people who created the toxic 
mess or the taxpayers, the families of America?
  What we are saying basically is if this burden is shifted to the 
taxpayers of America, corporate responsibility is abandoned. The 
corporations and businesses that create the mess should bear the burden 
of cleaning it up.
  The Senator from California has made this point: In my State of 
Illinois, we have 39 sites on the Superfund list and 6 that have been 
formally proposed. Several others ultimately filled

[[Page S5321]]

with PCBs, arsenic chlorinated solvents, and other harmful compounds 
will qualify. The Bush administration says the corporations and 
industries responsible for this mess should not pay for it; American 
families, workers, and taxpayers ought to pay for it. Where is 
corporate responsibility in this administration?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am really pleased my friend has tied this into the 
bigger picture, because this particular chart shows it all. The Bush 
administration is moving away from corporate responsibility when it 
comes to cleaning up the worst toxic sites in America. They are 
cleaning up half the number of sites. We do not know. We cannot tell.
  I am the chair of the Superfund Committee and the Environment 
Committee. The bottom line is, I cannot even tell whether the sites of 
the Senator from Illinois are going to be cleaned up because this 
administration is keeping that information secret.
  To get to the point about corporate responsibility, having faced the 
Enron scandal, and continuing to face it in California, let me state 
what this means. It means corporations could care less about the people 
they serve. They tell their own employees to buy Enron stock while the 
insiders sell out. The shareholders were the last people they thought 
about. It is a lack of a corporate ethics.
  When this administration writes an energy plan, they talk to these 
very same corporations that essentially turn their back on the American 
people. As my friend, Senator Mikulski, brought up at a meeting we both 
attended today, some of these corporate executives renounced their 
citizenship in order to get away with not paying any taxes. They leave 
the greatest country in the world, which gave them every opportunity to 
fulfill the American dream, and they throw it all away for dollars and 
cents.
  There is little corporate ethic in America. There are some very good 
corporations. Why not say to those good corporations: We appreciate 
what you are doing; join with us. Let us get back a corporate ethic.
  On the Norquist black list that my colleague referred to, I thought 
it was interesting when Ari Fleischer was asked about it in his press 
conference. He said: I have no comment because we have nothing to do 
with it. I found that amazing. Does he have no comment on terrorism? He 
has nothing to do with that. Does he have no comment when something 
horrible happens around the world that we have nothing to do with? 
Since when is it that there is suddenly silence when it comes to a 
black list? I think it is a political embarrassment to them.
  More than that, what worries me is they are not distancing themselves 
from this issue. I hope in America there is room for all kinds of 
views. When Vice President Cheney put together the energy plan, they 
did not want any views from people who had what I would call the public 
interest versus the special interest. I worry about this small circle 
around this President that does not hear from people who may have a 
different view.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for another question, I think 
we should make it clear what this Norquist black list is all about. 
Grover Norquist is one of the conservative gurus in the Republican 
Party. He is now joining in what he calls his ``K Street Project'' with 
other conservatives. They are really creating a black list of people 
with which this administration will not deal. People who are fighting 
for the environment, people who are fighting for human rights, people 
who are trying to protect the rights of individuals to have health 
care, people who are trying to protect consumers will be part of the 
Norquist black list.
  Now what the Bush administration is saying is that they really do not 
know that they want to comment on this. They should comment on it 
immediately and reject it. They ought to denounce it. This is 
unacceptable, whether the President is a Democratic or Republican. 
Every President should be open to every point of view. They may come 
down and reach a different conclusion, but to create a black list, as 
Grover Norquist has for those who are standing up and fighting and 
basically representing the families of America, is plain wrong.
  I ask the Senator from California, do we not see this coming back at 
us in so many different ways? The Senator mentioned Enron, the weak 
stock market, and the lack of confidence in corporate America. Should 
we not have leadership from the White House saying we demand corporate 
responsibility? We do not find that, do we, in this administration 
response?
  Mrs. BOXER. No, we do not find it. As a matter of fact, I am waiting 
for some indictments on the Enron case, to be honest.
  Mr. DURBIN. Not one so far.
  Mrs. BOXER. Not one so far. We now know because other whistleblowers 
are telling us that they set the pace for the energy industry. This was 
the biggest transfer of wealth from ordinary American families to the 
pockets of these people. It is extraordinary.

  Overlay the whole Enron scandal and anyone can see that California 
was used as a cash cow to keep Enron afloat while the insiders sold 
their stock. I have seen videotapes of the highest executives at Enron 
telling the poor employees--as these top executives were unloading 
their stock--buy more stock. They wanted to see that the stock was 
artificially held up and have more people and more employees buying so 
they could sell out.
  I look at the word ``patriotism'' perhaps in a different way than 
others. Patriotism extends to a very broad range. When I say this, I 
mean if you are truly patriotic and love this country, yes, you stand 
with this President in the war against terror. But it extends to the 
way you treat people in your life, Americans who get up in the morning 
and work hard, single moms, people with illness who want prescription 
drugs. To make this the greatest country is making sure we have a 
strong middle class to buy the products that business makes, to be able 
to educate their children so this country continues to be the greatest 
in the world.
  When you put greed ahead of the American families in this country and 
their rights and forget your responsibilities, where is the patriotism 
there?
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  I have met with business leaders in Chicago from good businesses, 
from across Illinois, and they are saying the same thing. They are 
ashamed of what has happened with Enron. They are ashamed of what they 
are seeing in this area of corporate irresponsibility. They believe 
they are good Americans creating profit for their shareholders and job 
opportunities and good products. They are looking for leadership from 
Washington. Usually business says, Washington, hands off, stay away 
from us.
  Many times they are asking, What are you going to do to help us clean 
up the mess when it comes to accounting standards and energy 
regulation? We need leadership from Washington. Yet there is little or 
nothing coming from this administration when it comes to corporate 
responsibility. For the sake of this country, for the sake of the good 
companies in this country, those that are responsible, we need an 
administration that will speak out now to restore confidence to the 
American people in our economy, in our business structure, in our stock 
market. Yet the only thing we hear is the Norquist blacklist. They are 
going to blacklist certain people from having access to this 
administration if they deign to speak on behalf of consumers and 
average people. That sort of thing is totally unacceptable. It is an 
ethic we should not accept from either political party in this Nation.
  I ask the Senator from California if she has heard the same thing 
from responsible business leaders in her State.
  Mrs. BOXER. There is no doubt about it. They are embarrassed by what 
has happened--the corporate executives who take home millions and 
millions of dollars and then do not pay their taxes, corporate 
executives who do not care about their employees and destroy not only 
their employees' jobs but their pensions. It is a moment in our history 
where they are looking to us for leadership.
  The way I tie it into the environment and health and safety is this: 
I showed on the floor the environmental record for 2001. This is the 
record for 2002. Each week, there is another plan to weaken 
environmental laws and protect the people. It is a terrible message to 
corporate America.

[[Page S5322]]

  This chart shows the EPA budget. They eliminated the budget for 
graduate student research in the environmental sciences.
  Look at enforcement. Good businesses welcome enforcement. If you are 
doing it right and the enforcers come in, you are in good shape. They 
cut it back, and the bad apples do not get caught.
  Look at air quality, nuclear waste, endangered species, mining public 
lands, something my colleague is involved in, oil and gas drilling, 
urban sprawl.
  This administration zeroed out the funding for urban parks. I would 
love my friend to comment on this point: 70 percent of our people live 
within reach of an urban park. Unbelievably, 2 weeks ago the 
administration sent out a press release bragging about all the grants 
they made from last year's money, not mentioning in this press release 
they have now zeroed out the funding for urban parks.
  This lack of caring for the people of this country, as I see it, in 
terms of the environment and this kind of a record set a poor example 
for everyone, for business leaders. If business leaders see this 
administration does not really care, when it comes to the environment, 
about the health and safety of the people, what is the subtle message 
to a corporate executive? I guess: I don't have to care. I guess the 
bottom line is my profit.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from California to reflect on this. It 
is not as if this administration cannot find money. When it comes to 
tax breaks for the wealthiest people in our country, they can find 
plenty of money. When it comes to an urban park--which is what many 
working families look forward to on a Sunday afternoon, whether it is 
in San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Chicago, a place to go with your 
family and enjoy yourself on Sunday afternoon--the administration says 
we cannot afford urban parks but we can afford a tax break so that the 
multimillionaires in this country can go to private clubs and can enjoy 
a lifestyle that involves a lot of privacy.
  For the average working-class family, their lifestyle involves fun 
perhaps on a Sunday afternoon on the Lake Michigan shoreline or going 
to an urban park in and around the city of Chicago.
  It really is a choice. It is not as if the Bush administration is 
saying there is just no money for anything. They found money when it 
came to tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America. When it comes 
to putting money into America to protect our environment, to protect 
for prescription drugs under Medicare, for a tax deduction for college 
education expenses, to give a tax break to small businesses to offer 
health insurance, this administration cannot see it. It casts a blind 
eye.
  Mrs. BOXER. The point is the message it is sending, subtle or not so 
subtle, to corporate America, about what is important. There is a 
relationship between the two.
  This chart shows the clean water rule. The administration reverses a 
25-year-old Clean Water Act rule that flatly prohibits disposal of 
mining and other industrial wastes into the Nation's waters. The EPA 
issued new regulations making it legal for coal companies to dump fill 
material--dirt, rock, and waste--from mountaintops, moving mining into 
rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands.
  My point is, if this administration that is charged with protecting 
the environment, as we are, is so callous about the quality of the 
water for the people of this country, the not so subtle message to 
corporate America is: People don't matter that much; just make your 
profit because we really don't care.
  It is stunning. That is why I am glad my friend was here. This 
connection between this record, which I think is so unmindful of the 
needs of the American people, does translate over to short-term 
thinking in corporate America, to thinking that it really is not 
important to care about the environment, your people, or their health 
and their welfare reform.
  Mr. DURBIN. Did we not go through this same debate on the energy bill 
a few weeks ago? The Senator and I were coming to the floor and saying, 
if you want to lessen America's dependence on foreign oil, if you want 
more energy security, take a look at the No. 1 consumer of oil in this 
country--the cars and trucks we drive. Have more fuel efficiency and 
fuel economy. Forty-six percent of the oil we import goes into our cars 
and trucks. A number of Members came to the floor and said let's 
improve fuel economy of cars and trucks in America to lessen our 
dependence on foreign oil. The corporate interests came in and said no, 
no change, no improvement.
  What it means is, we passed an energy bill which fails to address the 
most basic element of developing energy security, energy independence, 
and a cleaner environment for America. It literally has been 17 years 
since we improved the fuel economy of cars and trucks. When we look at 
this, time and again, it is corporate irresponsibility that turns its 
back on the environment and energy security for this country.
  As the Senator from California has pointed out, this is a pattern 
which is emerging through this administration. Instead of leading us 
toward more responsible conduct, as individuals, as families, and as 
businesses, they are turning their back on corporate responsibility.
  I think it all comes together. I think the environmental issue plays 
into the energy issue and, frankly, the vote we had on the floor where, 
67 to 32, the Senate rejected improving fuel efficiency in cars and 
trucks across America was a shameful vote. It is a vote which, frankly, 
we are going to have to answer for decades to come.
  I ask the Senator from California, whose State has led when it comes 
to fuel standards and clean air and fuel efficiency, whether she 
believes this is all part of the same issue?
  (Ms. STABENOW assumed the chair.)
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, it is. It is short-term thinking. It 
is not good for this country. If you want to talk about patriotism, the 
most patriotic thing you can do, it seems to me, is drive a car that 
doesn't use all that foreign oil. It is very hard to get such a car, an 
American car particularly.
  It is interesting my friend raised this because he is right. The 
Senate was weak on this, shamefully weak. But we did not get any help 
from Vice President Cheney when, on June 18, 2001, he announced to 
General Motors executives that the Bush administration has no plans to 
pursue higher fuel efficiency standards. That set the tone.
  When this administration came in, many of us did say there were so 
many ties to energy, so many ties to oil companies, that we were very 
worried. But some of us thought maybe, because of that, the 
administration would bend over backwards to be fair, to lean on this 
issue. We were sorely disappointed.
  If one could sit down and really think it through, we are talking 
about a very unwise strategy on the part of this administration to not 
look ahead, to not plan for the future, to not care about your 
grandchildren or my grandchildren having the opportunity to see the 
beauty of this country; to not worry that much if the quality of the 
air goes down or the quality of the water; to convince yourself the 
environmental laws are a burden on industry. That is disproven and 
untrue.
  My friend talks about California. We have been the leader on 
environmental protection. We have found when you clean up the 
environment you create jobs. There has been study after study. One of 
our best exports happens to be environmental technologies. So by 
turning away from a clean and healthy environment as a goal to help our 
people, you are also blocking a very important piece of our economy, a 
place where we are way ahead.
  I remember when the wall fell in eastern Europe, one of my friends 
who went there said: The trouble is, now you can actually see the air. 
They had not done anything about air pollution.
  I know my friend is leaving. I am about to end what I am saying. But 
I thank him so much for tying together this horrific anti-environmental 
record, the anti-environmental record of this administration, to the 
whole issue of corporate greed, of corporate irresponsibility. We are 
seeing more and more of the big corporations really turning their back 
on the people they are supposed to serve, frankly--their customers; the 
people they are supposed to help, their employees; their shareholders, 
just using this very shortsighted type of reasoning that this 
administration uses, which is get it all now and don't worry about the 
future.

[[Page S5323]]

  If you take the issue of CO2 emissions, we had a President 
who promised that, although he was against Kyoto, he would come up with 
a plan to cut those emissions back. That is the problem that causes 
global warming. I don't know of any respected scientists today who say 
global warming is not a dreadful problem. What it could do to our 
agricultural products, what it could do to our Nation, what it would 
mean for the world, is devastating.
  It is not a question of panicking about it. It is a question of doing 
something about it. It is not that hard to do, if we set our mind to 
it.
  This administration's Environmental Protection Agency sent a report 
to the United Nations where they admitted, yes, there is global warming 
and, yes, it is caused by human beings, and, yes, it is bad. Now this 
administration, this President, is backing away from his own 
administration, what they said. He said: Gee, I really don't agree with 
that ``bureaucracy.''
  I don't get it. This is his Environmental Protection Agency. And the 
thrust of the report, even though it admitted there were problems, 
basically said there are these problems but we have to learn to live 
with them.
  I do not understand why people go into Government, would join the 
Environmental Protection Agency, would run for President or the Senate 
or the House to say: ``You know, it's a problem.'' And throw up their 
hands.
  That is not what we are about. Our job is to find solutions to 
problems, to lay those problems out. I know the Senator who is in the 
Chair is taking the lead in finding solutions to the problem of the 
high cost of prescription drugs, not only for our seniors but for all 
of our citizens. She is working long and hard on that, day in and day 
out, and with her leadership and that of others in the Senate, we are 
going to come up with a good plan.
  I know our leader, Tom Daschle, is going to come up with a very good 
plan that we can all back, on all fronts, dealing with Medicare but 
also dealing with the pricing of prescription drugs.
  You could throw up your hands and just say, ``Isn't this awful, 
prices are going up,'' and walk away. Why would we deserve to be here 
if we took that attitude? Why do we deserve to be here if we do not 
protect people's health--by getting them prescription drugs, but also 
preventing the health problems that you get when you have dirty air and 
water and high levels of arsenic and high levels of lead in children's 
blood.
  It is one thing to react at the end of it when they have these 
illnesses. We need these pharmaceuticals. It is another thing to 
prevent these problems because many come from a very unhealthy 
environment.
  I am sorry to say that this administration's record in 2001--and 
let's show 2002--an average of once a week, coming up with an anti-
environmental rule, rolling back a pro-environmental, prohealth rule. 
This record is shameful. I think it is only because we have been so 
focused, as we have to be, on other issues, that we have not, as 
Americans, stood up to say this is a terrible circumstance.
  I will show the Superfund. I will leave with that one more time, to 
show the number of sites they are cutting back on the Superfund. 
Remember, in California 40 percent of Californians live within 4 miles 
of a Superfund site. I am sure, Madam President, if you examine the 
Superfund sites in your State--you have many, as unfortunately many of 
us do, and we will give the exact number later--you will see what is 
happening. There is a walking away from the responsibility to clean up 
these sites, which means these sites will remain very dangerous.
  We have a site in New Jersey that has become infamous because the 
wildlife there is turning bright colors from the dioxin that is in the 
soil, the arsenic that is in the soil, the dangerous chemicals that are 
in the soil. The EPA will not tell us, Madam President, from which of 
your sites they are walking away. We are trying desperately to get the 
information.
  Senator Jeffords, who is a man of tremendous patience, I can tell 
you, started trying to get the information in March. We sent a letter 
and said that we now see you promised to clean up 75 sites. Now you say 
it is only 47. That is down from 87 sites under the last 
administration. Tell us, pray tell, which sites are you abandoning? Our 
people have a right to know. It impacts their lives; it impacts the 
lives of their children; it impacts the property values in the 
community. Just tell us which sites you are not going to clean up.
  We found in the hearing we held that, in fact, a message went out to 
all the employees at EPA not to talk to anyone. Don't tell Senators 
which sites are off the list; don't tell newspapers; refer all the 
calls to our communications people.
  The penchant for secrecy in this administration is growing to be 
alarming. We couldn't find out who sat in on Vice President Cheney's 
meeting when they drew up this energy bill. We had to go to court to 
find out. Now we know. It was the special interests that wrote that. We 
know what happens then.
  That is not the kind of America we want. We want an America where 
everyone sits around the table--people from the environmental 
community, people from the business community, people from the labor 
community, people from the management community. That is the way we are 
going to have an America that works for everyone--not when we leave out 
people with whom we don't agree.
  I represent a State which is very diverse in thinking. We go from 
very liberal to very conservative and everything in between. If I just 
sat with the people who voted for me, that would be a huge mistake for 
me; plus, it would be unfair and wrong.
  We need to sit with people with whom we don't always agree. That is 
why this Norquist blacklist is so upsetting, as Senator Durbin said. If 
we put a little X on the forehead of people who do not agree with us, 
and we put them on a blacklist and we never talk to them, what kind of 
America is this going to be? It is going to be an extremist America--an 
America that doesn't reflect the values of the American people.
  One of the values of the American people is a clean and healthy 
environment. I hope people will educate themselves to the fact that we 
cannot find out which Superfund sites are not going to be cleaned. I 
hope people will understand the danger they face if this continues.
  I pledge today to continue to come to the Chamber to talk about this 
environmental issue, to fight for the Superfund Program, and to fight 
for clean air and clean water. We are going to take this case to the 
American people.
  I thank the Chair very much. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the majority has 
expired. The remaining time until 10:45 is controlled by the minority 
leader.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________