Volume 142, No. 64 covering the 2nd Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“TRIBUTE TO NANCY CHUDA” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S4948-S4949 on May 9, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
TRIBUTE TO NANCY CHUDA
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased today to announce my intentions to introduce in the near future, a bill that will help protect the children of this country from the harmful effects of environmental contaminants. I can not think of a more appropriate time of the year than the time we recognize the special achievements of mothers, to focus this Nation's attention on protecting the health and safety of our children. Mr. President, I am working hard on this piece of legislation, not only because I am a mother, but because I want to pay tribute to one exceptional mother. This mother knows the intense sadness of losing her child.
This very special mother lives in my State and I am proud to call her my friend. Three years ago, Mrs. Nancy Chuda came to visit me to ask for help. Her little girl, all of 5 years old, had died of cancer--a nongenetic form of cancer. No one knows why or how or what caused little Colette Chuda to become afflicted. She was a normal, beautiful girl in every way. She liked to draw pictures of flowers and happy people. One thing is certain, she was blessed to have two wonderful parents. Nancy and Jim Chuda, despite their grief, chose to turn their own personal tragedy into something positive. They have labored endlessly to bring to the country's attention the environmental dangers that threaten our children. They want to make sure that what happened to their Colette will not happen to another child. No mother should have to go through what Nancy Chuda went through. If future deaths can be prevented, I know we all will be indebted to the tremendous energy and perseverance of Nancy Chuda.
Mr. President, science has shown us that children are special. They are not simply a smaller version of you and me. They are still growing, many of their internal systems are still in the process of developing and maturing, and, of course, their behavior is different. Studies show that they breathe faster. They come in contact with numerous objects in their quest to learn and explore the world around them. They eat differently--children consume foods in different amounts in proportion to their body weight. I can remember, when I was a kid, I ate mayonnaise sandwiches and I consumed whole boxes of cereal while watching TV. Today, there are more questions than ever with respect to children's developmental health. And Mr. President, I am sad to say there are very few answers.
The factors behind the special environmental risks that children face need special attention. A recent study issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported on the effects of pesticides in the diets of infants and children. The study concluded that the Federal Government is not doing enough to protect our children from exposures to pesticides. The NAS study essentially confirmed what many in the regulatory community were already worried about. Although we may have the highest quality and the safest food in the world, the fact is that risk assessments of pesticides and toxic chemicals do not differentiate clearly enough between the risks to children and the risks to adults.
It has been estimated that up to one-half of a person's lifetime cancer risk may be incurred in the first 6 years of life. There is currently not enough information to know exactly how to account for all of the differences when conducting a risk assessment. We need to know more about what health risks our children are exposed to. We need to collect exposure data not only on our children's diets, but also, on our children's exposure to air pollutants and surface pollutants. The fact is that we do not have the data that allows us to quantify and measure the differences between how adults and children respond to environmental pollutants.
The absence of this data often precludes effective government regulation of environmental pollutants. In my bill, I intend to change this. We must ensure that our regulators have the data they need to be able to assess the risks of these substances to children. This would let them do their job of protecting our most vulnerable sector of society from environmental pollutants.
Although most people associate pesticide use with agriculture, children may be exposed to far greater health risks by other common uses of pesticides such as lawn and garden uses, household uses, and fumigation uses in schools.
Children come in contact with pesticides and other toxic substances, not only from the food they eat, but from the air they breathe, and the surfaces they touch. In communities with contaminated air, improving overall air quality for disease prevention is of vital importance. Some studies suggest that pediatric asthma is on the rise and is exacerbated by air pollution. Pollutants from tobacco smoke, stoves and fireplaces, household cleaners and paints, even glues and the synthetic fabrics used in furniture are all thought to be contributing factors. One EPA study showed that 85 percent of the total daily exposure to toxic chemicals comes from breathing air inside the home.
I firmly believe that citizens have a right to know what substances they are involuntarily subjected to, whether they live next to a farm or in the heart of South-Central Los Angeles. My bill will require pesticide applicators to keep records and submit reports to the EPA. Subsequently, EPA is directed to publish annual bulletins informing citizens of the types and amounts of pesticide chemicals that are being used in and around their neighborhood, in their apartment buildings, and most importantly in their schools. My bill would give parents the ability to make informed decisions to protect their family. Public health and safety depends on its citizens and local officials knowing the toxic dangers that exist in their communities.
EPA's Toxics Release Inventory [TRI] collects chemical release information from manufacturing and several other industries. It is the Nation's most popular and highly successful community right to know program. TRI is generally well supported through voluntary compliance of industry. The program has prompted many companies to set ambitious pollution reduction goals as well as voluntary restrictions and improvements. My bill will apply a similar philosophy to other kinds of environmental contaminants. I am betting on the same outcome emerging from applicators and users of pesticides and believe this will benefit everyone concerned.
I strongly support the administration's policies over the past few years to place greater emphasis and attention on the environmental health issues that affect children. I especially applaud the Environmental Protection Agency for taking the lead. Last year EPA made it an agencywide policy to consider the risks to infants and children consistently and explicitly in every regulatory decision. EPA's stance has inspired me to include its policy in my bill and to expand its philosophy to other Federal agencies charged with regulating toxic substances and environmental pollutants. The factors behind the special environmental risks that children may face need and deserve special attention so that in the future we can prevent the kinds of problems that children have suffered from lead in paint, asbestos in schools, and pesticides in food.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up