[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1815-1817]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CONCERNS OF CALIFORNIANS

  Mrs. BOXER. All right. Madam President, I was here earlier to discuss 
the State of the Union as I saw it in California, and I reported that 
my constituents--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, young, and old--
are very anxious about where we are. They are anxious when they see 
that we had a surplus that, in 2 short years, has turned into a raging 
deficit. They are anxious that we are on the brink of war without a lot 
of our allies coming along. They are anxious about their pension plans. 
Many are having to work longer and harder because of what happened with 
the stock market losing trillions of dollars in value. They are anxious 
about seeing a Nation that has lost its way on foreign policy and 
domestic policy. They have asked me to address some of these issues in 
every way that I can.
  This afternoon, I am here to address the issue of the environment. I 
am very proud that Senator Jeffords is here on the floor, because he is 
fighting very hard for clean air. He has introduced legislation--the 
Clean Power Act--to take on the challenges we face with 2 billion tons 
of carbon dioxide, which causes global warming; 45 million tons of 
mercury, which poisons fish and endangers the health of children and 
pregnant women; 6 million tons of nitrogen oxide, which creates smog 
and causes asthma; and 13 million tons of sulfur dioxide, which causes 
acid rain, premature death, and lung disease. He has authored a very 
good bill to cure this problem.
  The administration is not supporting his bill. They have written 
their own bill called ``Clear Skies.'' Many I know are calling it 
``dirty skies.'' If we would just leave the Clean Air Act intact, as it 
is, we would clean up the air far faster than this administration 
rollback. That is just one more example of a series of rollbacks that 
we are seeing done by this administration.
  Frankly, the people of California, from both political parties, who 
cherish their environment, love to see the ocean, the forests, the 
lakes, and the rivers, and they cherish clean air. We have made so much 
progress and we want the Clean Water Act to stand intact. They are 
anxious, they are concerned, and they are puzzled as to why this 
administration is turning its back on Presidents--Republicans and 
Democrats, starting with Teddy Roosevelt who made the environment a 
nonpartisan issue, and President Eisenhower who said the Alaskan 
Wildlife Refuge should be left intact, and President Nixon who created 
the Environmental Protection Agency, and President Clinton who did so 
many far-reaching things on the environment, protecting acres of land 
of roadless, beautiful areas, and used his executive pen to make sure 
that beautiful areas of our country are off limits to special interests 
because we believe when we got this land from God that it is our 
responsibility to preserve it and leave it in better condition than we 
found it.
  We take this very seriously in California. This is not a partisan 
issue. I have people who voted for President Bush coming up to me and 
tugging at my sleeve: What is the matter with this administration?
  Every Friday, late at night, when the press operations have shut 
down, they are making yet another rollback. The people in my State want 
me to fight against it, and I intend to do so.
  Let's talk about this attack in specifics. One in every four 
Americans lives within 4 miles of a Superfund site. This chart has 
little dots that represent Superfund sites. Seventy million Americans 
live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. Ten million of those are 
children who are at risk of cancer and other health problems.
  My State happens to have the second highest number of sites after New 
Jersey, but as we can see, there are sites in almost every State in the 
Union. These Superfund sites are dangerous.

[[Page 1816]]

They include chemicals such as arsenic, benzene, DDT, and brain-
damaging toxins like lead and mercury.
  In 1980, Congress enacted the Superfund law. During the last 4 years 
of the Clinton administration, an average of 87 final cleanups occurred 
each year. Let's look at what is happening under George Bush. Half of 
those sites are being cleaned up. Worse than that, who is now paying? 
Under Bill Clinton and under Republican Presidents before him, 
including George Bush's father, we taxed the polluters. The polluters 
paid to clean up their mess.
  When I was growing up, my mother always said: Clean up your mess. She 
did not want to hear me say: It is somebody else's responsibility, mom. 
It is not mine.
  Wrong. If you make a mess, you clean it up. Simple. That goes for 
polluters. That is why we set up the Superfund. The polluter pays was 
the rule of the day.
  Now what is happening? This President does not support the Superfund 
fee on the biggest polluters. We see where the taxpayers used to pay 
only 18 percent of the cleanup costs, in this year are going to pay 50 
to 54 percent of the cleanup costs. After this year, there will be 
almost nothing left in the Superfund, and this will be 100-percent paid 
for by taxpayers at a time when this President is depleting the money 
we already have by giving tax cuts to the people who earn over a 
million dollars a year, who do not need it.
  So what is wrong with this picture? This President refuses to stand 
behind a bipartisan effort to reinstate the Superfund fee. I have 
introduced the bill with Senator Chafee, a Republican. This President 
will not support that and instead supports using general taxpayer funds 
to clean up Superfund sites.
  Polluter pays is a principle that has worked. It has been supported 
by people of both parties and Presidents of both parties. It seems to 
me our people are in danger, and this administration is walking away 
from the Superfund.
  I want to talk a little bit about clean water because this is very 
important. The Bush administration is working to remove Federal 
protection from many waters, including many creeks, streams, small 
ponds, and wetlands. These bodies of water have long been protected by 
the Clean Water Act. There was a rule published late in the day, and 
the effect of the rule is that 20 to 30 percent of our bodies of water 
could be exempted from the Clean Water Act. Why on earth would anyone 
want to do that when we see the results of the Federal Government's now 
saying that 20 to 30 percent of our water bodies no longer are covered 
by the Clean Water Act will be more polluted waterways? We already know 
the Nation's waters are getting dirtier, and almost half of our lakes, 
streams, rivers, and coastal estuaries are not safe for fishing, for 
swimming, or for boating.
  How many people have taken their children on a vacation only to go 
down to a lake, go down to an ocean and find the sign, ``Polluted. You 
may not enter this body of water''?
  We will kill off the remaining populations of 43 percent of 
endangered or threatened species that rely on wetlands for survival. We 
will deplete drinking water sources.
  Mr. President, I ask about the time. My understanding from Senator 
Harry Reid was we had time until 3:15. He asked me if I could then 
extend that to 3:30. No one is on the floor from the other side. 
Because there is no one on the other side, I ask unanimous consent--and 
I think if I do not get that unanimous consent, it says to me that 
people on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, are not 
interested in allowing free speech to move forward. There is no one in 
the Chamber. I am happy to cease and desist when the next speaker 
comes. I ask unanimous consent that until another speaker comes that I 
be able to complete my remarks on the war on the environment that is 
going on each and every day, that is hurting our air, hurting our 
water, hurting our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). I have been advised by the 
leadership of the majority that they do intend to use their time, and 
so in my capacity as a Senator from Idaho, I object to the request.
  Mrs. BOXER. I once more ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak 
until the next speaker comes to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous rules, the Senator from 
California's time has expired. However, her side has until 3:15. She 
may ask unanimous consent to use that time.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is what I have been doing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator has until the hour of 3:15 or until a Senator from her side 
wants to claim that time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have been asked to take that time. That is what I was 
trying to convey to my friend. I ask for an additional 2 minutes 
because it took 2 minutes for the Chair to figure out that I actually 
could take Harry Reid's time. Would that be all right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am very feisty today because I see an attack on our 
environment. I want to make the case, and I am going to try to do it in 
the remaining 7, 8, or 9 minutes I have.
  If we move away from the Clean Water Act, what we will see is more 
polluted waters, more waterborne illness, higher drinking water 
filtration costs, more flooding, fish kills, and impaired sports 
fishing--that is why we have so many sports fishermen with us--fewer 
waterfowl and less recreational hunting. That is why we have so many 
recreational hunters with us as we try to resist this move to remove 
bodies of water from the Clean Water Act.
  We will see reduced tourism, less spending on bird watching, 
ecotourism, and wildlife photography. I know my colleague understands 
the importance of tourism to our States. People come to see the 
beautiful wildlife, have a hunting or fishing trip, to take 
photographs, to show their children what wildlife really is. It is a 
hard time for those of us who believe so much that protecting the 
environment is a bipartisan issue.
  I want to talk about something that is very near and dear to my heart 
because when I came to the House of Representatives in the 1980s, we 
learned that 100,000 dolphin were being killed every year because of 
destructive fishing practices, including Purse-Seining on dolphin. Many 
people now know what that is because Greenpeace called it to the 
world's attention. When tuna swim, they swim underneath the dolphin, 
and so unless one is really careful, they are going to throw their nets 
over the dolphin, and the dolphin are going to be killed or harmed. 
This practice was occurring in the 1980s. One hundred thousand dolphin 
were being killed each and every year because of dolphin deadly methods 
of fishing.
  I have to say the young people of America turned the tide because 
kids would say to their parents: This is wrong to do to the dolphin, 
and if it means we are not going to take a tuna sandwich in our lunch, 
fine. We will boycott tuna until the tuna fishermen catch the tuna in a 
way that does not harm the dolphin.
  Happily, the Congress passed the law I wrote. All the law said was we 
should create a label called a ``dolphin safe'' label, and if the tuna 
in that can was caught in a way that did not harm the dolphin, the 
manufacturer could, in fact, put that on the can.
  What happened as a result of that legislation? By the way, it costs 
no money at all. It was just letting the consumer know the truth. The 
dolphin kill went down to 2,000 a year from 100,000 a year. That was 
because of the ``dolphin safe'' label of 1990.
  The label was not that well respected. In about 1997, there were 
moves to weaken it. Basically, we held firm. Now the Commerce 
Department under George Bush has decided, forget all that, you can use 
the ``dolphin safe'' label even if you go back to purse seining on 
dolphin--as long as no one saw any dolphin die.
  Scientific studies say that just does not work. When you harass the 
dolphin and you use the helicopters and you

[[Page 1817]]

chase the dolphin and you torment the dolphin, we know what happens. 
They are not reproducing and they are not healthy. Yet this Bush 
administration wants to change the label. Now, fortunately, groups have 
gone to court and gotten the administration to guarantee that it will 
not change the meaning of ``dolphin safe'' until the court has examined 
this issue. For the moment, the ``dolphin safe'' label stands.
  I put the administration on notice: If they persist in this, we will 
start another boycott. Americans do not agree with the administration 
putting free trade ahead of the dolphin. I can state that 75 percent of 
Americans want to make sure that label means something.
  I have been in public life having first been elected in the 1970s, 
and I have always been a fighter for a clean and healthy environment. 
In all the years I have been in office, I have never seen such an 
attack on the environment. I have a list of every single attack on the 
environment this administration has made. It is published. We did it in 
chart form. We have four charts. Each shows repeals or rollbacks of an 
environmental law or regulation. It can be found on the NRDC Web site. 
If I were to have it on a piece of paper, it would roll out 32 feet.
  Two hundred rules and regulations have been rolled back by this 
administration against the will of the American people, many of them on 
Friday afternoon. I am here to say on behalf of many on this side of 
the aisle--and some on the other--we believe protecting the environment 
is an American value.
  It is not a Democratic value or a Republican value, it is an American 
value. We cherish our God-given environment. We cherish our forests, 
our streams, our lakes, our oceans. We believe it is important we keep 
the air clean, the water clean.
  We will continue to come to the floor and make the case that this is 
the most anti-environmental administration in recent history. It is 
amazing when we compare contributions of a Republican President, Teddy 
Roosevelt, a Republican President, Richard Nixon, a Republican 
President, George Bush 1--who, by the way, said we should test poor 
children for lead in their blood. That is important to find out if they 
are sick or healthy. If they have lead in their blood, we should take 
action. This President tried to repeal that rule until we called him on 
it and pointed out it costs $13 a child and he stopped it. He tried to 
say we should not try to take arsenic out of water. We called him on 
it.
  Mr. President, the state of the Union is anxious--anxious about the 
economy, it is anxious about jobs. It is anxious about a number of 
things: The possibility of war; it is anxious about a foreign policy 
that is in totally different directions where one country has 
inspections going on and we don't trust the leader of that country, we 
are ready to go against him, and another country has nuclear weapons 
and we are going to resolve that diplomatically. The country is 
anxious. They are anxious about the state of their environment. They do 
not want to have another Friday come and find out their rules for clean 
air, clean water, beautiful forests, are under attack.
  I am here to say to the President: I know you are doing the last-
minute rewriting of your speech. Think about what we are saying today. 
Democrats have come here in good faith to point out their differences. 
Reach out to us. Have a plan for the economy that is going to work. Say 
you will follow in the bipartisan traditions of environmental 
protection. Work with us on a foreign policy that is consistent and 
does not wait until a crisis hits but actually is proactive. Work with 
us on prescription drugs. Work with us so that people can get health 
insurance. We are ready, we are willing, and able to work with you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my understanding we now have 1 
hour from this minute under our control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________