    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                  S. 1009, THE CHEMICAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 13, 2013

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-92

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    87-628                    WASHINGTON : 2014
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman

    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    JOE BARTON, Texas                      Ranking Member
      Chairman Emeritus                  JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  GENE GREEN, Texas
    MIKE ROGERS, Michigan                DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             LOIS CAPPS, California
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                      JIM MATHESON, Utah
    PHIL GINGREY, Georgia                G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            Islands
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              JERRY McNERNEY, California
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PETER WELCH, Vermont
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  PAUL TONKO, New York
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    BILLY LONG, Missouri
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina

                                     _____

                  Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy

                             JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
                                     Chairman
    PHIL GINGREY, Georgia                PAUL TONKO, New York
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               GENE GREEN, Texas
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             LOIS CAPPS, California
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                JERRY McNERNEY, California
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
    JOE BARTON, Texas                        officio)
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois, opening statement....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      New York, opening statement....................................     3
    Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Michigan, opening statement.................................     5
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, prepared statement...................................   134
    Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, prepared statement..............................   135

                                   Witnesses

    Hon. David Vitter, a United States Senator from the State of
      Louisiana \1\..................................................     8
    Hon. Tom Udall, a United States Senator from the State of New
      Mexico \1\.....................................................     9
    James Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety
      and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency......    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   190
    Cal Dooley, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
      Chemistry Council..............................................    46
        Prepared statement...........................................    49
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   194
    Ernest Rosenberg, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
      Cleaning Institute.............................................    54
        Prepared statement...........................................    56
    Richard A. Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund.    67
        Prepared statement...........................................    69
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   198
    Dean C. Garfield, President and Chief Executive Officer,
      Information Technology Industry Council........................    84
        Prepared statement...........................................    86
    Andy Igrejas, Director, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families........    93
        Prepared statement...........................................    96
        Answers to submitted questions \2\...........................   204
    Wendy E. Wagner, Joe A. Worsham Centennial Professor, University
      of Texas Law School............................................   103
        Prepared statement...........................................   105
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   205

                               Submitted Material

    Letter of October 23, 2007, from Frances G. Beinecke, President,
      Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., to Mr. Dingell,
      submitted by Mr. Dingell.......................................     6
    Letter of June 25, 2013, from Matthew Rodriguez, Secretary for
      Environmental Protection, California Environmental Protection
      Agency, to Senator Dianne Feinstein, et al., submitted by Mr.
      Shimkus........................................................   137
    Letter of November 13, 2013, from Jeanne Rizzo, President and
      Chief Executive Officer, Breast Cancer Fund, to Mr. Shimkus and
      Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. Shimkus............................   150

    ----------
    \1\ Mr. Vitter and Mr. Udall did not submit written statements for the
    record.
    \2\ Mr. Igrejas did not answer submitted questions for the record by
    the time of printing.
    Letter of July 24, 2013, from National Conference of State
      Legislatures co-chairs to Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator
      David Vitter, submitted by Mr. Shimkus.........................   155
    Letter of November 12, 2013, from Rainer Lohmann, Graduate School
      of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, et al., to Mr.
      Upton and Mr. Waxman, submitted by Mr. Shimkus.................   161
    Letter of June 12, 2013, from John S. Applegate, Walter W.
      Foskett Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of
      Law, et al., to Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr.
      Shimkus........................................................   169
    Letter of November 12, 2013, from Debra Baseman, Princeton
      Medical Group, et al., to Mr. Upton and Mr. Waxman, submitted
      by Mr. Shimkus.................................................   186

                  S. 1009, THE CHEMICAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013

                      House of Representatives,
           Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in
    room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John
    Shimkus (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Gingrey, Pitts,
    Murphy, Latta, Cassidy, McKinley, Bilirakis, Johnson, Tonko,
    Pallone, Green, DeGette, Capps, McNerney, Dingell, Barrow, and
    Waxman (ex officio).
        Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Charlotte
    Baker, Press Secretary; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental
    Policy Advisor; Brad Grantz, Policy Coordinator, Oversight and
    Investigations; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and
    the Economy; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff Member; Andrew
    Powaleny, Deputy Press Secretary; Chris Sarley, Policy
    Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Jacqueline Cohen,
    Democratic Senior Counsel; Greg Dotson, Democratic Staff
    Director, Energy and Environment; and Caitlin Haberman,
    Democratic Policy Analyst.
        Mr. Shimkus. I would like to call the hearing to order.
        We want to welcome our two Senators. First, I will do--we
    will do our opening statements, and then we will give you yours
    and then--and we will begin. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Today we hold our fourth hearing of 2013 on the Toxic
    Substance Control Act. We welcome our witnesses, including a
    couple of former House guys; Senator Vitter and Senator Udall,
    as well as Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator of the EPA, and
    some of the important stakeholders in this discussion.
        Until more recently, TSCA was one of the least understood
    Federal environmental laws, but it is one of the most important
    environmental protections laws that we have. It governs
    chemical substances, mixtures and articles from the time they
    are invented, all the way through the stream of commerce.
        Our hearings have been very instructive. They have given us
    a chance to dig into the nuts and bolts of this complex body of
    law. Among other aspects of the law, we studied approval of new
    chemicals, regulation of existing chemicals, protection of
    confidential business information, and the value of a seamless
    integrated U.S. market for chemicals and products that contain
    them. We have gotten the perspective of learned experts in the
    practice of TSCA law, former EP officials experienced in what
    works and what doesn't work in the law's administration, State
    environmental control officials, downstream product
    manufacturers, and citizen activists.
        As we will hear firsthand in just a few minutes, a lot of
    thought and hard work has also gone into TSCA on the other side
    of the Capitol. Earlier this year, Senator Vitter and the late
    Senator Frank Lautenberg, with strong bipartisan support,
    introduced Senate Bill 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement
    Act. Its reform, if enacted, will represent the most sweeping
    set of changes to TSCA since the Ford administration.
        We are eager to learn what aspects of this proposal brought
    such a diverse set of supporters together. We hope this
    administration and our panel will tell us what they see as the
    best attributes of the legislation. We also hope to entertain
    suggestions on how to make it better.
        Writing legislation as complex and as important as
    modernizing TSCA is not easy, but implementing it may be even
    tougher. Congress can give EPA both the authority and direction
    to carry out everything in a new TSCA, but we just can't assume
    that the Agency has the resources to accomplish all of it, nor
    that they will get it done in a short period of time of
    enactment. That is why we need some guidance from Jim Jones,
    who manages the chemical regulation for the EPA. Mr. Jones, we
    hope your help won't end with today's hearing. The same goes
    for stakeholders, and not only the ones we will hear from
    today. We need your help in understanding the real world
    implications of any legislation we might consider. No one,
    whether on this side of the dais or on the witness table, has
    all the answers, but that doesn't mean we don't need you to
    give us all of your input.
        And, finally, thanks to all the members of the subcommittee
    for your thoughtful work this year on TSCA. Have you noticed
    that our hearings have not been debates across the aisle, but
    rather nonpartisan efforts to understand the current law? At
    times, I have learned as much from questions from Mr. Tonko or
    Ms. DeGette, and the answers witnesses give them, as I have
    from my own brilliant questions that I have offered.
        Let us continue to embrace that same spirit as we begin to
    explore whether we can make Federal chemical management policy
    better, and allow the United States to lead the global--the
    globe in manufacturing smarter public health protection and
    innovation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus

        Today we hold our fourth hearing of 2013 on the Toxic
    Substances Control Act. We welcome our witnesses, including a
    couple of former House guys, Senators Vitter and Udall, as well
    as Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator of EPA, and some of the
    important stakeholders in this discussion.
        Until more recently, TSCA was one of the least understood
    Federal environmental laws, but it is one of our most important
    environmental protection laws. It governs chemical substances,
    mixtures, and articles from the time they are invented all the
    way through the stream of commerce. Our hearings have been very
    instructive. They've given us a chance to dig into the nuts and
    bolts of this complex body of law.
        Among the aspects of the law, we've studied:
         L Approval of new chemicals,
         L Regulation of existing chemicals,
         L Protection of confidential business information,
    and
         L The value of seamless, integrated U.S. market
    for chemicals and products that contain them.
        We've gotten the perspective of:
         L Experts in the practice of TSCA law;
         L Former EPA officials experienced in what works
    and what doesn't work in the law's administration;
         L State environmental control officials;
         L Downstream product manufacturers; and
         L Citizen activists.
        As we'll hear first-hand in just a few minutes, a lot of
    thought and hard work has also gone into TSCA on the other side
    of the Capitol. Earlier this year Senator Vitter and late-
    Senator Frank Lautenberg with strong bipartisan support
    introduced S. 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. Its
    reforms, if enacted, would represent the most sweeping set of
    changes to TSCA since the Ford administration.
        We're eager to learn what about this proposal brought such
    a diverse set of supporters together. We hope the
    administration and our stakeholder panel will tell us what they
    see as the best attributes of the legislation. We're also open
    to suggestions on how to make it better.
        Writing legislation as complex and as important as
    modernizing TSCA is not easy. But implementing it may be even
    tougher. Congress can give EPA both the authority and direction
    to carry out everything in a new TSCA, but we can't just assume
    that the agency has the resources to accomplish all of it, nor
    that they'll get it all done in a short period of time after
    enactment.
        That's why we need some guidance from Jim Jones who manages
    chemical regulation for EPA. And, Mr. Jones, we hope your help
    won't end with today's hearing.
        The same goes for stakeholders, and not only the ones we'll
    hear from today. We need your help in understanding the real-
    world implications of any legislation we might consider. No
    one, whether on this side of the dais or at the witness table,
    has all the answers, but that does not mean we don't need you
    to give us all of your input.
        And, finally, thanks to all the members of this
    subcommittee for your thoughtful work this year on TSCA. Have
    you noticed that our hearings have not been debates across the
    aisle, but rather non-partisan efforts to understand current
    law? At times I've learned as much from questions by Mr. Tonko
    or Mrs. DeGette, and the answers witnesses have given him, as I
    have from my own.
        Let's continue to embrace that same spirit as we begin to
    explore whether we can make Federal chemical management policy
    better and allow the United States to lead the globe in
    manufacturing, smarter public health protection, and
    innovation.

        Mr. Shimkus. With that, I yield back the balance of my
    time, and I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Tonko, the ranking member of
    the subcommittee.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. I am
    pleased to be here today for this important hearing on the
    Chemical Safety Improvement Act. It is a pleasure to welcome
    Senator Vitter and Senator Udall here to discuss their
    perspectives on TSCA, TSCA reform, and report on their ongoing
    efforts to reconcile the interests of the many constituencies
    who have a deep stake in chemical issues. It is not an easy
    task.
        This is our subcommittee's fourth hearing on TSCA. There
    seems to be general agreement by all parties that the current
    law simply is not working. Current law does not give the
    Environmental Protection Agency the tools or the resources the
    agency needs to implement an effective toxic chemical program,
    but general agreement on these observations is no guarantee of
    agreement on the best way to address these problems. And it
    appears we still have some disagreement about which aspects of
    TSCA are in need of revision.
        The public does not have confidence in this law or EPA's
    implementation of it. Industry's assertion that its products
    are safe is simply not good enough. Because the Federal law is
    ineffective, States have stepped in to address specific
    chemical risks. State action provides an essential backstop to
    Federal law, but individual State actions do not provide a
    uniform safety guarantee to all of our citizens, and they do
    not provide national standards and regulatory certainty to
    industry.
        So where do we go from here?
        The bipartisan initiative represented by S. 1009 offers us
    an opportunity for broad participation in the effort to reform
    TSCA, and that is what we need; broad participation in this
    effort. Because chemicals are such a part of our daily lives,
    we all have a stake in this effort. This bill does not yet
    address many of the current law's shortcomings. In some
    respects, it takes us backward by preempting States' ability to
    act, for example.
        There is no need for a State preemption. If this proposal
    provides EPA with the tools to protect all of our citizens,
    including those who are the most vulnerable; children and our
    elderly, there will be far less call for individual State
    action, but States should retain their rights to act in the
    best interests of their citizens, and to address specific State
    concerns when, indeed, it is necessary.
        I am concerned about retaining the unreasonable risk
    standard from current law when it has not proven to be a
    sufficient basis for Agency action over the past 37 years.
        EPA cannot evaluate the potential risk or relative safety
    of chemicals without sufficient information. The fact is we
    still have many chemicals circulating in commerce for which we
    have little health and safety information, and even less about
    their behavior in the environment. This problem stems from
    several weaknesses in the current law, which this legislation
    only partially addresses. We need a Federal chemical law that
    provides adequate protection of public health and the
    environment, and that promotes continued innovation in our
    chemical industry.
        The Chemical Safety Improvement Act does not yet achieve
    the right balance between these important goals, but with
    additional work it could. We have a very knowledgeable and
    experienced group of individuals here today who will offer
    constructive suggestions to this subcommittee about how to
    proceed.
        Thank you for being with us this morning. I look forward to
    hearing your views on the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, and
    your recommendations for creating what needs to be an effective
    chemical safety law.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. The Chair now
    seeks anyone need time on the majority side. Seeing none, the
    Chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus, Mr. Dingell, for 5
    minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Dingell. I thank you for holding this hearing. This is
    a valuable act, and I am much appreciative to you.
        We need to know what is going on with regard to TSCA, the
    Toxic Substances Control Act. It is long past time to reform
    this law. EPA has not been able to tackle even the most
    dangerous of chemicals and substances, and we may need to find
    a way to fix this problem.
        There has been only a few successes of TSCA since it was
    signed into law by my good friend from Michigan, former member
    of this body, our good friend, President Gerald Ford. During
    the House floor debate on TSCA, I was successful in proposing
    an amendment to phase out the use of PCBs. That, I think, and
    six other substances are about all that TSCA has been able to
    remove from the trade.
        We are finding out today what kind of negative effects PCBs
    have on the food chain, human health, wildlife and water
    quality. Frankly, it is very bad, and they remain a part of the
    chain even though they have been long removed. My amendment was
    supported by industry and by the environmentalists, and was
    adopted by a voice vote. Those kinds of things are possible to
    do, and I would note that we think that industry and the others
    who are concerned with these matters can work together, and I
    hope that this committee will give them the chance so to do.
        The most recent change to TSCA happened only a few years
    ago when I was chairman of the committee, and when we passed
    the Mercury Export Ban Act. I have here a letter from 2007
    penned by the National Mining Association and Natural Resources
    Defense Council, the American Chemistry Council, the
    Environmental Council of State, and McLaren Institute in
    support of that legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that
    it be inserted in the record.
        Mr. Shimkus. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.001

        Mr. Dingell. And I thank you for that.
        The reason I suggest this is it shows that we can work
    together where there is the will, and your leadership, I hope,
    will provide us that necessary requirement.
        My point here is that any overhaul of TSCA must include
    broad support from industry, environmental and conserver
    groups. From the time that we passed the Clean Air Act
    amendments of 1977, this committee has held frequent hearings
    over the next 13 years until we ultimately passed the Clean Air
    Act amendments of 1990. An interesting story about that was,
    somebody said, Dingell, what a great thing you did in getting
    this bill through the House in 13 hours. I said, yes, it only
    took me 13 years to do it. But the harsh fact of the matter is
    these things take a lot of hard work, and a lot of time and a
    lot of cooperation.
        I think industry and others who have concerns on this,
    consumers and environmentalists, are willing to work together,
    and your leadership, I think, will be of enormous value in
    achieving that great goal.
        There has been much debate on the--in the Senate about the
    legislation before us, and I am pleased to see that we have two
    of our former colleagues from the Senate over here to discuss
    these matters with us. Before supporting any legislation,
    however, I would hope that the broad support that we saw from
    the Mercury Export Ban in 2007, and for TSCA in 1976, will be
    available.
        I do look forward to today's hearings, and I commend you,
    and I hope that we can find compromises that will gain not just
    the 218 votes on the House floor, but will come closer to the
    unanimity that we have seen on other legislation that has come
    out of this committee, including the Clean Air Act, which we
    passed by an overwhelming majority with, I think, less than 10
    votes against it. So I hope that we can work together. The task
    will be difficult. The problem is very complex, and I think the
    challenge is great, but I am hopeful that the members of the
    committee can pull together on this, your leadership will be
    successful, and that we will accomplish the great goal of
    cleaning up the mess that we have on TSCA, and seeing to it
    that it works with the other problems that we have in
    connection with Clean Air, Superfund and all the other
    difficulties that we confront.
        I thank you for your courtesy to me, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. Now the Chair
    would like--again, wants to welcome our former colleagues from
    the House, now U.S. Senators, back to the House side and to the
    Energy and Commerce Committee room. This has been an issue that
    has been going on for many years, and Senator Vitter and I sat
    down 3 years ago, and--when he started working with Senator
    Lautenberg on this. So we are glad to have you present, and I
    would recognize each of you 5 minutes. That is not a hard time.
    And then we will dismiss you and we won't put you up to
    questions from your former colleagues. Who knows what they
    would ask.
        So with that, we would like to recognize Senator David
    Vitter from Louisiana for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENTS OF HON. DAVID VITTER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
      THE STATE OF LOUISIANA; AND HON. TOM UDALL, A UNITED STATES
                   SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

                     STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER

        Mr. Vitter. Thank you very much, Chairman Shimkus and
    Ranking Member Tonko and all the members for this invitation.
    Senator Udall and I are really excited to be here to talk about
    our work, particularly over the last few months, to ensure that
    S. 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, which I had the
    real honor and pleasure of introducing with Frank Lautenberg,
    continues to improve, and ultimately gets us to where we need
    to be so that finally, after 37 long years, we modernize and
    repair the badly-outdated Toxic Substances Control Act.
        Today's hearing is a huge step in the right direction, and
    I know it is continuing your work, the fourth hearing that you
    have had on this important topic, and I am really excited to
    see your work and see it dovetail with our work.
        The Lautenberg-Vitter Bill, which is currently co-sponsored
    by a very bipartisan and politically-diverse quarter of the
    U.S. Senate, was the product of extensive negotiations, and I
    believe it exemplifies solid positive bipartisan compromise and
    good policy. But while we were putting together the bill
    initially, certainly, Frank Lautenberg and I never thought we
    had perfect legislation. And so that is why I have been honored
    to partner with Senator Udall since Frank's passing, to
    strengthen S. 1009, and we have committed ourselves to meeting
    with anyone interested in achieving significant bipartisan TSCA
    reform.
        After a long hearing, for instance, in July in our Senate
    committee, and countless hours of meetings, we fully recognize
    the issues that have been raised, some legitimate, some not,
    with the Lautenberg-Vitter Bill. And I think it has made--been
    made abundantly clear, but I will certainly say it again, and I
    know Senator Udall agrees, anyone interested in achieving
    meaningful bipartisan compromise to ensure TSCA reform protects
    all Americans in all 50 States, not just a small segment of the
    population, or the financial interests of some particular
    constituency, anyone who has those interests has a welcome seat
    at the table. And I am confident that by working with Senator
    Udall and interested stakeholders, the EPA, all of you, other
    members, co-sponsors of S. 1009 and others, will achieve a
    final version that not only enhances business certainty and
    creates a strong Federal chemicals management system, but also
    sets meaningful deadlines and protects the most vulnerable
    among us, effectively screens all active chemicals in commerce,
    and guarantees Americans access to private rights of action and
    legal remedies, and makes certain that EPA has the tools
    necessary to ensure the chemicals that we are all exposed to
    are indeed safe.
        Now, as I said, anyone interested in a meaningful,
    substantive result and bipartisan compromise is welcome to a
    seat at the table, but I do want to urge that the Lautenberg-
    Vitter Bill, which was the product of a lot of hard work and
    real compromise itself, is the core and the foundation that we
    build from. Frank himself called that compromise an historic
    step that would ``fix the flaws with current law.'' Vice
    President Biden referred to our efforts as a ``bipartisan
    breakthrough.'' In a statement from Senator Lautenberg's widow,
    Bonnie, she remembered, ``Frank told me that this bill would be
    bigger and could save more lives than his law to ban smoking on
    airplanes.'' And in her words, ``passage of this bill would be
    a wonderful cap to his career and testament to his legacy.''
        So S. 1009 is Senator Lautenberg's legacy bill, and I hope
    we work hard to improve it, take up any significant legitimate
    issue. We have been doing that through my work with Senator
    Udall, but in doing that, I hope we do not go back, quite
    frankly, to failed previous efforts that were completely stuck-
    in-the-mud on partisan lines. And so, again, I want to urge us
    to stick to this core as we improve it and pass it into law.
        I would be remiss not to mention the work that went into
    achieving this compromise with Frank, because it didn't happen
    overnight, didn't happen without a lot of work and a lot of
    give-and-take from both of us. He was a very talented
    legislator committed to making the world a better place. I
    enjoyed arguing and negotiating and working with him. Frank's
    wife, Bonnie, was there to take pictures the day Frank and I
    shook hands on the core pivotal agreement, and again, I am
    really pleased and honored that Senator Udall and I have
    partnered carrying on that work and that legacy to get it
    across the finish line.
        Again, I want to thank each and every one of you for all of
    your work on TSCA, I know it has been ongoing, and specifically
    for this hearing as part of that continuing conversation.
        Thank you for the invitation.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes
    Senator Udall. And, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT HON. TOM UDALL

        Mr. Udall. OK. Thank you very much for the invitation to be
    here today, and I really in particular want to thank Chairman
    Shimkus and also Ranking Member Tonko.
        We--Senator Vitter and I both appreciate this opportunity.
    And let me just, at the beginning, just say what a pleasure it
    has been working with Senator Vinner--Vitter and all of the
    stakeholders to try to center-in on something that we think can
    get through the Senate, and also I hope will be received over
    here with some kudos and applause.
        S. 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, has been the
    center of a lot of debate and discussion in the Senate since
    its introduction. When I first cosponsored the legislation, I
    did so for two reasons; one, I believed the bill addressed some
    of the key flaws in TSCA, and that has been noted here. There
    have been a number of flaws there. And I was very moved by the
    spirit of bipartisan compromise led by Senator Frank Lautenberg
    and Senator Vitter in an area where the two parties are often
    very far apart.
        My staff and I and Senator Vitter's staff have spent many
    months since the introduction, working on this legislation and
    working with the various stakeholders. S. 1009 is not perfect,
    and, as introduced, has some key problems that need to be
    addressed. As Senator Lautenberg's successor, as chairman of
    the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental
    Health, I respect the criticism the bill is receiving, and I
    strongly believe several key areas must be addressed for this
    legislation to be successful.
        Chairwoman Boxer held a hearing on this issue earlier this
    year which delved into these issues. I applaud this committee
    for taking similar action.
        I think many of these problems are unintentional, but many
    in the environment and health community believe these issues
    mean this legislation should not move forward as-is, and given
    the fact that we are talking about one of the most ineffective
    laws on the books, that is worth noting. I agree that we should
    not pass S. 1009 as introduced, but I am, and will continue to
    be, optimistic about the incredible bipartisan spirit around
    finding reform and protecting our families from dangerous
    chemicals.
        As the subcommittee chair, I want to develop and pass
    legislation that safeguards our citizens. S. 1009 has a number
    of strong elements of needed reform, as well as problems. We
    can, building off of that, and that is why I have committed so
    much time to working with Senators of both parties to improve
    this bill so that it could move forward and be something we can
    all be proud of.
        Through the--through that process, I have come to
    appreciate how big a challenge this is. After all, TSCA's own
    fatal flaws have not been fixed in decades. Nevertheless, I
    believe we are up to the challenge.
        Here are the big three issues with the current Senate bill
    that we are working on. Number one, ensuring that the EPA will
    have the tools it needs to protect citizens from dangerous
    chemicals, and to ensure that EPA will be able to review the
    known 84,000 chemicals. This means getting the prioritization
    and deadlines right, along with specifically protecting
    vulnerable populations. Second, we must make sure to protect
    private rights of action, to hold companies responsible, and
    ensure they don't cut corners. As a subcommittee chair and
    supporter of justice for victims, it is not my intent to
    preempt private claims. That has been stated publicly by myself
    and by Senator Vitter. Further changes are absolutely necessary
    to make this intent clear throughout the bill. And finally, we
    must make sure to protect the right of States to safeguard our
    citizens.
        On that last point, let me take a moment to say to Ranking
    Member Waxman and members of the California delegation that the
    chair of our committee, Barbara Boxer, has been a tireless
    advocate for the State of California and our country. I
    appreciate the leadership she has shown to protect citizens
    from dangerous chemicals, and I believe that California and
    other States play a critical role in lifting up health and
    safety standards for our country.
        As this committee proceeds on its own deliberations of how
    to reform TSCA, I would word--urge you to work together as we
    are working together, and I am sure you will. I think it would
    benefit us all to work together on a bipartisan and bicameral
    basis. TSCA has been a failed environmental law for decades. We
    have a historic opportunity before us. Success is far from
    certain, but it would be a shame to waste it.
        And thank you again, Chairman Shimkus. Pleasure to be over
    here with my former colleagues, and we look forward, Senator
    Vitter and I do, on working with you on this piece of
    legislation.
        Mr. Shimkus. I want to thank you both for coming over. We
    appreciate the efforts you have made so far, and really the
    bipartisan approach is going to be critical in moving anything,
    and we look forward to working with you as we move through this
    process. So thank you again. You are dismissed, and we will
    then seat our second panel.
        So, as stated in my opening statement, we would like now to
    welcome and thank you for coming, the Honorable Jim Jones. You
    are--he was the Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
    Safety and Pollution Prevention, with the United States
    Environmental Protection Agency.
        Sir, you have 5 minutes. We are not hardcore on the time.
    This is a very important issue, and we look forward to your
    opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF JAMES JONES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
        CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION, ENVIRONMENTAL
                           PROTECTION AGENCY

        Mr. Jones. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
    Tonko, and other members of the subcommittee.
        Thank you for inviting me to--for the opportunity to
    discuss reform of the chemicals management laws of the United
    States.
        I think we all agree on the importance of ensuring that the
    chemicals manufactured and used in this country are safe. With
    each passing year, the need for TSCA reform grows, and this
    administration believes it is crucial to modernize and
    strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act to provide EPA with
    the necessary tools to achieve these goals.
        EPA is encouraged by the interest in TSCA reform, indicated
    by the introduction of several bills in recent years, the
    bipartisan discussions underway, and today's hearing which
    marks the fourth in a series of hearings on TSCA reform before
    this subcommittee.
        Many stakeholders share common principles on how best to
    improve our chemicals management programs. EPA is committed to
    working with each of you and other members of Congress, the
    environmental community, the chemical industry, other
    stakeholders and the public to improve and update TSCA.
        As you know, chemicals are found in almost everything we
    use and consume. While they are essential for our health,
    wellbeing and prosperity, it should be equally essential that
    they are safe. Compared to 37 years ago when TSCA was passed,
    we have a much better understanding of the environmental
    impacts, pathways of exposure and health effects that some
    chemicals can have, especially on children and other sensitive
    populations.
        TSCA gives EPA jurisdiction over chemicals manufactured,
    processed or distributed in the United States; however, unlike
    laws applicable to drugs and pesticides, TSCA does not have a
    mandatory program that gives EPA the authority to conduct a
    review to determine the safety of existing chemicals. In
    addition, TSCA places challenging legal and procedural
    requirements on EPA before we can require the generation and
    submission of data on the health and environmental effects of
    existing chemicals.
        While TSCA was an important step forward when it passed in
    1976, it has not only fallen behind the industry it was
    intended to regulate, it has also proven an inadequate tool for
    providing the American public with the protection they
    rightfully expect from exposure to harmful chemicals. When TSCA
    was enacted, it grandfathered-in, without any evaluation, about
    60,000 chemical in commerce at the time.
        It has also proven challenging to take action to limit or
    ban chemicals that have been determined to pose significant
    health concern. For example, in 1989, after years of study, EPA
    issued a rule phasing out most uses of asbestos in products.
    Yet, in spite of near-unanimous scientific opinion, a Federal
    court overturned most of this action because it found the rules
    had failed to comply with the requirements of TSCA. In the past
    37 years, the EPA has regulated only 5 chemicals under Section
    6 of TSCA, which gives the EPA the authority to ban harmful
    chemicals.
        While EPA is committed to using the tools available under
    TSCA, we believe it should be updated and strengthened to
    ensure that EPA has the appropriate tools to protect the
    American public from exposure to harmful chemicals. It is
    crucial that any updates to TSCA include certain components.
        In September of 2009, the administration announced a set of
    principles to help guide the discussion to update and
    strengthen TSCA. These include providing the agency with the
    tools to quickly and efficiently obtain information from
    manufacturers that is relevant to determining the safety of
    chemicals. The EPA also should have clear authority to assess
    chemicals against a risk-based safety standard, and to take
    risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the
    standard.
        On April 15, Senators Lautenberg, Vitter and others
    introduced S. 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. While
    EPA has not yet developed a formal position on the bill, we
    offer the following observations in light of the Agency and the
    administration principles. As stated in the principles,
    legislation should provide EPA with authority to establish
    risk-based safety standards that are protective of human health
    and the environment. The EPA should have clear authority to
    take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the
    safety standard, with flexibility to take into account a range
    of consideration, including children's health, economic costs,
    social benefits and equity concerns. The principles further
    indicate that clear, enforceable and practicable deadlines
    should be set for the Agency to review and make decisions on
    chemicals, in particular, those that might impact sensitive
    populations, and provide a sustained source of funding for
    implementation. Administrative requirements should add
    demonstrable value to the process beyond existing law and
    requirements. Legislation should provide the EPA with tools to
    ensure the protections put in place are carried out, and
    provide a level playing field for companies that comply.
        We understand the concerns raised by many stakeholders
    regarding the appropriate role for States in addressing the
    risks of chemicals to which their citizens are exposed, and EPA
    stands ready to provide technical assistance on this important
    issue.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your leadership on TSCA
    reform, and I will be happy to answer questions that you or
    members of the committee have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.008

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Now I will recognize myself for the
    first 5 minutes for the starting of questions.
        So, again, welcome.
        Does Senate Bill 1009, in your opinion, strengthen EPA's
    ability to prevent dangerous new chemicals or those with
    inadequate information from entering the market?
        Mr. Jones. Yes, Congressman. To clarify, the existing
    statute does not require EPA to make an affirmative finding of
    safety for a new chemical, as 1009 requires an affirmative
    finding on the part of the EPA before a new chemical can enter
    the market. As it relates to data generation, interestingly, my
    attorneys have read the bill to provide EPA with the ability to
    require the generation of data if necessary to make a finding.
        There are other stakeholders who are not reading that
    provision the same way, which to me is an indication that there
    may be a need for clarification around that.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Do you consider Senate 1009 an
    improvement over current law for EPA to address hazards and
    risk of chemical substances in American commerce?
        Mr. Jones. So, you know, as we heard from Senator Udall,
    TSCA is perhaps one of the most poorly implemented
    environmental statutes, and so the way in which we look at the
    bill isn't is it better, is it--does it allow us to achieve our
    stated objectives of safe chemicals in the United States. And
    in that respect, under that standard, which is the way I am
    attempting to look at it, I think that there are some
    shortcomings, as we heard from Senator Vitter, that I would be
    happy to talk about as well.
        Mr. Shimkus. Many witnesses have testified before our
    committee on the strengths and successes of existing TSCA,
    Section 5, provisions for new chemicals, and new uses of
    existing chemicals. Notwithstanding Senate 1009 makes changes
    to Section 5, do you consider these changes appropriate?
        Mr. Jones. I think it is surprising to most people that we
    do not need to affirmatively determine safety before a chemical
    enters the market, so I think that that change is an important
    one, that the Agency affirmatively say, yes, this chemical is
    safe before it enters the market.
        Mr. Shimkus. Could these changes negatively impact
    innovation in the United States?
        Mr. Jones. When people talk about innovation, which we are
    very sensitive to at EPA and try to facilitate it, I don't
    think they think of it as innovation of unsafe things. So I
    don't view a requirement that the Agency affirmatively
    determine something meets a safety standard as impacting
    innovation in a negative way. I actually think it will
    facilitate innovation, because innovation should be around safe
    things.
        Mr. Shimkus. Right. I appreciate that. Further, some
    witnesses have talked about EPA needing more information on
    chemicals. Section 4 of Senate 1009 provides the EPA authority
    to order development of data and information on chemicals. Is
    this a tool the Agency currently has under Section 4 of TSCA
    today?
        Mr. Jones. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. That is actually one of
    the real highlights of the introduced bill. Right now, the
    Agency, if we wanted a company to generate health and safety
    data for a chemical, we need to go through a rather complex
    rule-making process, which also requires us to make certain
    findings that creates somewhat of a catch 22. We have to have a
    sense that there is a problem before we require the generation
    of this data, and the rule-making themselves can take up to 5
    years, if not longer.
        So order authority, the ability to, without going through
    that elaborate process, is a huge improvement, and it is an
    authority that we have in our pesticides program right now.
        Mr. Shimkus. And you answered it in the last question--the
    prepared questions I have is, order authority would be helpful
    in this venue, as you just testified.
        Mr. Jones. Very much so.
        Mr. Shimkus. Let me ask two other questions based upon your
    opening statement.
        When you say equity concerns, what do you mean?
        Mr. Jones. So sometime, well, actually, whenever you are
    protecting in a regulatory decision, or otherwise, it is
    important to understand where the protections occur. It is also
    important to understand where do the costs fall. Are the costs
    being borne by a broad segment of society, a narrow segment of
    society, are the benefits being enjoyed by a very narrow
    segment of society, or a broad segment of society? And so it is
    understanding where the costs and the benefits of a decision
    may fall. Understanding what they are.
        Mr. Shimkus. We kind of need a little more work on that
    because I think, for me, the basic premise is are we producing
    chemicals that are safe. So that I would think a safe chemical
    would be good for everybody in the production process and for
    the consumers, but I will get more briefings on that.
        When you define sensitive populations, what do you mean by
    that?
        Mr. Jones. Well, so that can be an equity concern. So that
    by looking at what we expect that we are going to be looking at
    highly-exposed individuals, wherever they may be----
        Mr. Shimkus. In the workplace or----
        Mr. Jones. In the workplace----
        Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Outside the fence of the
    facility, is that what we are talking about?
        Mr. Jones. Whoever is highly exposed to the chemical that
    we are looking at, or the use that we are looking at. And we
    also mean it to include are there certain parts of the
    population that may be biologically more sensitive. So a child
    or an infant may have different sensitivities than an adult, an
    elderly individual may have different sensitivities than a
    teenager. And so we look at both the highly exposed, who is
    getting more exposure than the average, and are there
    individuals or groups that may have greater sensitivity than
    the average.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you very much. My time has
    expired. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
    Administrator Jones, for your guidance.
        Now, the American people have relied on EPA and the Toxic
    Substances Control Act to protect them against the dangers of
    toxic chemicals, but EPA has faced significant challenges in
    banning or restricting toxic chemicals under TSCA, even in
    cases where the risks are widely recognized and understood,
    such as is the case of asbestos. So EPA's first principle of
    TSCA reform from 2009 reads, and I quote, ``chemicals should be
    reviewed against safety standards that are based on sound
    science, and reflect risk-based criteria protective of human
    health and the environment.''
        Some have suggested that EPA should consider the cost to
    the chemical industry and others when setting a safety
    standard. That would mean that somehow EPA would have to factor
    in the cost of reducing the public's exposure to harmful
    chemicals when determining whether exposure to a chemical is
    safe.
        Would an approach that requires consideration of cost and
    determination of the safety standard comport with EPA's
    principle?
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Representative Tonko. The
    administration principles speak both to science-based safety
    standards, and then in risk management, the Agency having the
    flexibility to consider other factors such as costs, so that
    when we are looking at how to mitigate a risk, those cost
    considerations can play into the ultimate decision making. And
    those concepts are both captured in the administration
    principles.
        Mr. Tonko. So based on science and cost?
        Mr. Jones. That is right.
        Mr. Tonko. We are looking at both. Historically, TSCA has
    applied an unreasonable risk standard. This standard has been
    interpreted to require cost consideration in setting standards,
    and it was one of the key problems that led to the tragic
    failure to phase-out use of asbestos. Is that correct?
        Mr. Jones. I think that not just in the unreasonable-risk
    standard itself, but many of the other requirements within
    Section 6, including the least burdensome requirement. Those
    two phrases, and a lot of other language around it, required
    what I would consider to be paralysis by analysis. So much
    analysis, you could never actually finish the work. And those
    conspired to get in the way of EPA in the asbestos context, and
    I would argue since then of being effective with Section 6.
        Mr. Tonko. So the bill we are considering today continues
    to use the legal standard of unreasonable risk. I am concerned
    that continuing to use this standard invites the use of the
    traditional interpretation which leaves EPA, as you made
    mention, paralyzed. Is this a fair concern?
        Mr. Jones. It is interesting, Congressman. There are a
    number of people in the stakeholder community, and they--in my
    conversations, they don't fall out in terms of, you know, one
    group versus another, but there are some parties who believe
    unreasonable risk can only be read to mean a cost benefit
    balancing. There are others who believe that it is all of the
    language around it that will matter ultimately. And so I think
    it is important to have that dialog to come to consensus so
    everyone agrees, whatever words are being used, there is a
    common understanding.
        That being said, I do believe that 1009 also has other
    language in it, beyond unreasonable risk, that has a similar
    effect as the least burdensome requirement which requires a
    seemingly endless amount of analysis on the part of the Agency
    before we can ever move forward. So I think that that is
    important to address as well.
        Mr. Tonko. And so in your view, we could end up with an
    adequate standard if we make it clear that EPA should abandon
    the historical interpretation of unreasonable risk?
        Mr. Jones. You know, I--interesting--I fall within the
    camp, thinking that the statute can clearly define unreasonable
    risk, but you need to use enough words that you counter the
    case law that exists out there right now, and the way in which
    the term is used within existing TSCA, but it is very important
    that whatever is done, that people agree about what the
    interpretation is, and not be in a position where people look
    at the same two words and think it means two different things.
        Mr. Tonko. So would it be easier to simply use a new
    standard that doesn't have the baggage associated with the
    phrase unreasonable risk?
        Mr. Jones. Well, that would be one way to do that.
        Mr. Tonko. OK. Given the history of litigation under TSCA,
    statutory language on cost consideration and the safety
    standard must be completely clear. I commend the administration
    for its clear principle on this matter, and look forward to
    ensuring that any bill we produce is consistent with the
    administration's position, otherwise we will have a lot of
    explaining to do to the victims of asbestos and other toxic
    chemical exposure.
        There is also a lot of talk about resources, as you talked
    about putting more and more into the standards that need to be
    met and reviewed. In your opinion, where are we at with the
    resource issue in order for the Agency to comply with the
    implementation?
        Mr. Jones. So one of the administration's principles is
    that there be a sustained source of funding for the EPA. Under
    existing funding, we would be limited in how much progress we
    could make in any period of time. We would think that a
    sustained source of funding would involve something above and
    beyond what currently exists for EPA. I think there are some
    models out there we could look to.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Administrator Jones.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman's time has expired. Chair will now
    recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Administrator Jones, I have got--actually I have got four
    questions for you, and I will start.
        Were Senate Bill 1009 enacted tomorrow, what would be the
    status of the regulations or guidance under current law? Would
    EPA need to reissue new regulations for regulatory matters that
    are already settled under current law?
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Congressman.
        So I believe that existing regulations would carry on as
    they are. I think guidance, we would need to look case-by-case
    to each guidance to see whether or not a new law, such as 1009,
    would require us to make any modifications to conform with a
    new statute. But regulations would carry on as they are
    currently drafted.
        Mr. Gingrey. Great. Thank you. And the second question, how
    could activities currently underway at EPA, as an example,
    identification of work plan chemicals and progress in
    conducting risk assessments of them, be integrated into S. 1009
    in a manner that does not disrupt or delay current TSCA work?
        Mr. Jones. I believe that the existing--introduced Bill
    1009 allows the agency to designate the compounds that we are
    already working on, workplan chemicals and other chemicals for
    which we have prioritized, which are about 80-plus, as high
    priority right from the get go. So right from the beginning,
    they would become high priority chemicals under the current
    draft.
        Mr. Gingrey. In your view, does the knowhow, experience and
    capability of the United States in regulating chemicals compare
    to other nations?
        Mr. Jones. Yes, well, just so you understand, my experience
    includes about 20 years working in the pesticides program and
    then in this capacity as well. Pesticides are chemicals and, in
    the pesticide context, we have a very strong statute that
    requires us to evaluate every chemical and have been able to
    effectively do that, so I think we have some of the best
    knowhow, experience and knowledge in the world as it relates to
    chemicals. I think what we are struggling with in this context
    is a statute that makes it difficult to apply that experience
    to the chemicals under TSCA.
        Mr. Gingrey. And my last question, and I have got, gosh, 2-
    1/2 minutes, I may be able to yield back some time.
        The United States is currently exploring a free trade
    agreement, as you know, with the European Union. Do you see any
    potential impact of those trade talks on domestic chemicals
    regulation?
        Mr. Jones. That is a very good question. What I would say
    about that is that my organization and myself will participate
    with USTR, largely through USTR, on those kinds of discussions.
    What we try to do at EPA is to identify areas where there may
    be unnecessary barriers to trade, while ensuring that existing
    health and safety standards in the United States are
    maintained.
        And so sometimes you may identify a barrier, but it is not
    going to get changed because we have domestic laws that would
    prevent it, but there are times when you can identify a problem
    that can be harmonized without changing the domestic safety
    standards in the United States.
        And so that is the sweet spot that we are looking for.
    Whether we will find any in that context is, I think, too early
    to determine, but that is how we will approach the issue.
        Mr. Gingrey. Could this free trade negotiation influence
    chemical risk assessment policy in the United States and should
    it? I mean that is really the meat of the question. They do
    things differently, obviously.
        Mr. Jones. Yes, that is a very good question. The Obama
    administration has been very clear that we are taking a risk-
    based approach to chemicals management in the United States.
    That is what we do under existing law, it is what we are
    advocating in a reformed TSCA. I don't see any scenario where
    we would move away from that. It is a pretty core principle of
    the administration. It has also been the principle of the U.S.
    Government for many administrations.
        Mr. Gingrey. Well, that is----
        Mr. Jones. I think it would be kind of unusual for us to
    move away from that.
        Mr. Gingrey. That is very reassuring, Administrator Jones.
        Thank you very much, and I yield back 30 seconds.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back the time. The Chair now
    recognizes the ranking member, full committee, Mr. Waxman, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Jones, thank you for testifying today. I would like to
    explore two issues with you about this bill. One is the issue
    of deadlines associated with effective Agency action, and the
    other is preemption of State requirements.
        Let us start with the deadlines issue.
        You testified that in the last 37 years, EPA has only been
    able to require testing on a little more than 200 of the more
    than 84,000 chemicals listed on the TSCA Inventory. That means
    that not even one percent of chemicals have been tested for
    safety in nearly four decades.
        I think the American people would see this as
    disappointing. They are counting on the Agency to ensure
    chemicals are adequately tested, but this history demonstrates
    that the law is not working the way it needs to.
        That is why, in my view, it is critical that legislation to
    reform TSCA include meaningful deadlines to ensure that
    chemical reviews are completed on a timely basis.
        Does the bill, Mr. Jones, that we are examining today
    adequately address this issue? Will it ensure that there are
    meaningful deadlines to address this huge backlog?
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Congressman Waxman.
        I don't believe that it does. The bill does require EPA to
    set deadlines, but it gives us unlimited ability to change
    those deadlines. So, in effect, I don't believe as a matter of
    law there are meaningful deadlines in the statute. I will say,
    as you well know from the Food Quality Protection Act which you
    had a big hand in, there were very clear deadlines about what
    EPA had to do. We had to look at all pesticides used on food
    within 10 years, and during a 10-year period we evaluated them
    all, actually, 99 percent, and met the deadline----
        Mr. Waxman. Yes. I am interested in that because this
    committee passed that bill. In fact, I worked with Chairman
    Bliley and Chairman Dingell. It was a strong bipartisan-
    supported bill. It required pesticide residues on food to be
    safe for infants and children. It included deadlines for
    hundreds of chemicals to be reviewed. And you are in charge of
    both----
        Mr. Jones. That is right.
        Mr. Waxman [continuing]. The TSCA issue and the 1996 law.
    So you have had the experience with deadlines that were very
    concrete. Did it affect the Agency's implementation of the law?
        Mr. Jones. I think it is why we met the deadline. From 1996
    to 2006, we met that deadline for 99 percent of the 10,000 food
    use tolerances in the United States, from 1996 to 2006 under
    TSCA, which has currently no deadlines. We----
        Mr. Waxman. Yes.
        Mr. Jones [continuing]. Didn't evaluate a single existing
    chemical during that----
        Mr. Waxman. Yes.
        Mr. Jones [continuing]. Period of time.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, 400 pesticide chemicals under the Food
    Quality Protection Act over 10 years have been reviewed, which
    complies with all the law's deadlines, and I congratulate you
    for that. At the same time, EPA completed no reviews under TSCA
    because there were no deadlines. I think that speaks very
    favorably for putting deadlines in the legislation.
        Now, let me turn to the question of preemption. Over the
    years, many States have acted to protect the public from the
    dangers of toxic chemicals. They have removed toxic chemicals
    from consumer products, they have banned developmental toxins
    from toys, and they have even worked to regulate chemicals that
    act as powerful greenhouse gases.
        Under this bill, Mr. Jones, EPA is required to determine
    whether a chemical is a ``high priority'' or a ``low priority''
    for review. And once this determination is made, State rules
    are preempted. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Jones. New State requirements would be preempted after
    EPA makes a determination a chemical is a high priority or a
    low priority.
        Mr. Waxman. OK. Now, in fact, the California EPA has
    identified dozens of State laws and regulations that may be
    preempted under this approach. But determining something is a
    ``high priority'' for review is only the beginning of the
    process. It could take many years for EPA to adequately address
    a ``high priority'' chemical. And without meaningful deadlines,
    we could have important State public health protections
    preempted while Federal action languishes indefinitely. Isn't
    that the case?
        Mr. Jones. That is correct.
        Mr. Waxman. The preemption as you see it is only
    prospectively, so existing laws would not be preempted?
        Mr. Jones. There is--I am sorry. There are actually two
    provisions; one is for existing requirements. Existing State
    requirements are preempted when EPA makes a safety
    determination. A safety determination is just our view of the
    risks of the compound; it is not the regulation of the
    compound. So you could have an existing State requirement be
    preempted once EPA has made a safety determination, but before
    EPA ultimately regulated it.
        Mr. Waxman. And that could be years.
        Mr. Jones. Well, there are no deadlines, so----
        Mr. Waxman. Yes.
        Mr. Jones. Yes, years.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, thank you very much for your testimony
    and your answering these questions. I think it drives us to
    look at this need for a bill with strong deadlines, and get
    this job done.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, thank you for
    being here.
        First of all, I want to say I am pleased we are having this
    hearing and moving forward with much-needed debate. There are
    some important provisions in the Senate bill to protect public
    health, while allowing companies to continue to innovate, and I
    am supportive of the Federal standard rather than the
    complexity in the 50-State statute. And one issue I want to
    raise is language in here related to articles. The bill says
    imported or exported articles will need to say whether they
    contain high-priority chemicals. This could require an
    extensive review--applied outside of the U.S. for articles we
    import, and this could be an extensive burden so it is
    something we need to look at in the future.
        Mr. Jones, a couple of things in your testimony. On page 5,
    you refer to social benefits. What does that mean?
        Mr. Jones. So how the benefits of the action are captured,
    and as a general matter, they relate to the health benefits
    that are generated.
        Mr. Murphy. And you mention health too. I just wondered
    how--is social different from health?
        Mr. Jones. As a general matter, I don't think that it would
    be.
        Mr. Murphy. OK, I wanted to be clear because that means
    different things to us. So, all right. Also, you referred on
    page 6 to sound science. Certainly, that is something this
    committee advocates a great deal. How do you define sound
    science, however? Is that something that is based upon refereed
    journals from scientists--respected scientists, is that
    something that the EPA puts out, is it something that its
    committees are appointed with political appointees----
        Mr. Jones. Right.
        Mr. Murphy [continuing]. How do you determine sound
    science?
        Mr. Jones. The Agency has actually got a fair amount of
    guidance that it has that describes the characteristics of what
    we want our science to include, which I would be happy to
    provide to the committee. As a general matter though, it
    includes that--we are looking at all the available information,
    and that we are relying on peer review to help make sure that
    our assessment of that science holds up.
        Mr. Murphy. I see. Appreciate it, and I hope we can make
    sure there is wording in the bill that defines that too. Let me
    ask this then, how long would the EPA take to accomplishing the
    following tasks in the Senate bill, assuming adequate staffing
    and funding. This is in S. 1009. First of all, sorting
    chemicals at the high and low priorities.
        Mr. Jones. So the initial cut around that, actually the
    Agency did before this bill was introduced, and that took
    several months to identify perhaps the 250 highest priority
    chemicals. So the sorting activity of finding what we think are
    the highest priorities does not take that long.
        Now, that being said, we were looking at about--a subset of
    about 1,200 chemicals for which there was a meaningful data
    set. At the end of the day, we would be required to sort a much
    larger universe than that, but that being said, the sorting
    activity itself is one that does not particularly take a long
    time.
        Mr. Murphy. OK. How long would it take you to complete the
    first safety assessment?
        Mr. Jones. So we think as a general matter, it is about a
    2- or 3-year process to be doing a chemical safety assessment,
    depending on the complexity of the chemical.
        Mr. Murphy. And how about completion of most safety
    assessments?
        Mr. Jones. Well, the numbers we are dealing with here in--
    under TSCA are so extraordinarily large, which is why I think
    that efforts to reform TSCA really focus in on and set some
    priorities so that you are focusing on those things that have
    the potential to have the greatest risk.
        And so, depending on how you want to define most of the
    chemicals, it would certainly inform how one would try to
    answer that.
        Mr. Murphy. So then this begs this question, because it is
    so important that the manufacturers have some important data on
    this too, but how long would it take you to publish the first
    regulations imposing restrictions on a chemical?
        Mr. Jones. So after having a safety assessment and safety
    determination, which we think can happen contemporaneously, it
    would be about 3 years for a final regulation for a chemical
    that had been assessed.
        Mr. Murphy. And how about deciding restrictions for the
    most risky chemicals?
        Mr. Jones. Well, it is about--the--3 years.
        Mr. Murphy. Three years for--then either way?
        Mr. Jones. Yes.
        Mr. Murphy. Can you elaborate a little bit what would go
    into that, making these determinations about your regulations
    of the most risky chemicals?
        Mr. Jones. With respect to what is the assessment like, or
    how do we ultimately determine whether risk management is
    necessary?
        Mr. Murphy. Maybe what the assessment is like.
        Mr. Jones. So the assessment is basically we are going to
    look at all of the data that is available around hazard,
    whether the chemical elicits some kind of an adverse effect in
    animals. Humans being who we are trying to protect, but it is
    usually the laboratory animals that...
        Mr. Murphy. Would you have ongoing communication with the
    manufacturers with this? And I think it is very--it is
    extremely helpful if you have an open communication, not
    surprising them, but open discussions, honest discussions as to
    what the scientific base----
        Mr. Jones. In the last year and a half or so, we have begun
    to do some safety assessments, and we try to make it open and
    available to everyone. I will say manufacturers tend to
    participate more than others, but it is open to everyone. And
    so if they have data that is useful to the safety assessment,
    they are encouraged to bring it to us----
        Mr. Murphy. OK.
        Mr. Jones [continuing]. Make sure that we have it.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
        Mr. Jones. So we will----
        Mr. Murphy. I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman's time expired. Chair now recognizes
    the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing. It is our fourth on TSCA reform before our
    subcommittee this year, and I am optimistic our committee can
    find a bipartisan path to reauthorization, and we address the
    concerns of most, if not all, of the stakeholders, and I look
    forward to the process.
        I would like to also thank Senators Udall and Vitter for
    joining us this morning earlier, as well as Assistant
    Administrator Jones, for the work they have done to move this
    issue forward.
        Mr. Jones, in your professional opinion, does the safety
    standard in Lautenberg-Vitter strengthen the EPA's ability to
    regulate chemicals over the present safety standard?
        Ms. Jones. Thanks, Congressman Green. I think that there
    are some issues with the way in which the safety standard in
    1009 is drafted, but the principle one that I see is that it
    requires a degree of analysis of the alternatives to the
    chemical that you are focusing on that could find EPA in a
    potentially an endless analytical loop. So that meeting those
    procedural requirements of evaluating all of the alternatives,
    the risks and the benefits of all of the alternatives, may find
    us in a situation where we can't finish on the chemical that we
    are focusing on, and that is actually built into the safety
    standards, so I think that that is the principle problem that
    we see.
        Mr. Green. Well, and I know there are a number of other
    questions. I would hope that we could sit down and work that
    out because, obviously, the EPA is the enforcement agency, but
    we want to make sure the law is both easily dealt with, both
    for everyone involved in it. So I look forward to using our
    resources together to deal with it.
        Are some of the challenging and legal procedure
    requirements encountered under TSCA, in quoting your testimony,
    fixed in the Lautenberg-Vitter Bill? If so, were these
    challenges addressed in 1009?
        Mr. Jones. I think that the issue that was most effectively
    addressed in the Lautenberg-Vitter bill is the inability the
    agency has had to easily require the generation of health and
    safety data. I think that has been the aspect of the bill that
    has most moved the ball forward. As I had mentioned earlier, I
    think that the removal of the least burdensome requirement that
    many focus on under TSCA has instead been replaced by a
    different kind of burdensome requirement, and I think that the
    deadlines--the lack of deadlines will meaningfully impair the
    Agency's ability to succeed in the way that I think that the
    drafters intended.
        Mr. Green. OK. Do you believe the infants, children and
    pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations, would be
    protected more under Lautenberg-Vitter than current law?
        Mr. Jones. The Lautenberg-Vitter Bill does require that EPA
    consider sensitive populations in our safety assessments, which
    is not required under existing TSCA. It doesn't require us to
    consider them in our safety determinations or risk management,
    so there is a movement towards that direction in Lautenberg-
    Vitter.
        Mr. Green. Under current law, can you explain what happens
    when a new chemical comes on the market? Does the manufacturer
    need EPA OK first?
        Mr. Jones. They need us to not say no. So they don't need
    us to affirmatively say yes, they need us to not say no. And
    the Lautenberg-Vitter Bill rectifies that by requiring EPA to
    affirmatively say yes.
        Mr. Green. OK. And you find--if--do you have to find that a
    chemical is safe before allowing it on the market?
        Mr. Jones. We are not required to make that finding.
        Mr. Green. OK. Would the Lautenberg-Vitter Bill address
    that issue?
        Mr. Jones. Yes, that is----
        Mr. Green. OK. How would S. 1009 change current law that
    protects confidential business information, and I know we have
    dealt with this on our committee a lot of times. Is it--would
    it require companies to refresh their requests for information
    protection?
        Mr. Jones. The principle change is that it would allow EPA
    to share confidential business information with State, local,
    emergency response officials, which is currently prohibited.
        Mr. Green. OK. How does it meet--make sure that the
    government officials, including States, get access to the
    needed information while still protecting those business
    secrets from competitors?
        Mr. Jones. So----
        Mr. Green. Is that protected in 1009?
        Mr. Jones. That is right. It would require the recipient,
    the State or local responder, to agree to maintain the
    confidentiality before receiving the information.
        Mr. Green. Some of the witnesses that will follow you
    suggest EPA cannot get information to prioritize chemicals, yet
    I noticed new Section 4(e)(3)(B) allows EPA to ask the public
    for information that is reasonably ascertainable. Does that
    section allow EPA to collect information that is reasonably
    ascertainable to make prioritized--prioritization decisions?
        Mr. Jones. It does, but there is also a provision that
    allows us to require the manufacturers to generate the data
    without going through a rule-making activity.
        Mr. Green. OK. And again, Mr. Chairman, I am out of time
    but I look forward to us working with EPA and the drafting, and
    to make sure we know we are all on the same page, literally.
        Thank you for your time.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman's time expired. Chair now recognizes
    the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
    for holding this hearing this morning, and thank you very much
    for being here. We really appreciate your testimony, and the
    discussion that we are having today.
        Just again to kind of--where I am coming from. I represent
    a district that has 60,000 manufacturing jobs, and it is also
    unique in that I also represent the largest number of farmers
    in the State of Ohio. So I have parallel things going on out
    there. And so when I am out at home and this issue comes up,
    people really want to know what is happening in Washington, and
    especially where EPA would be going.
        And if I could ask you just a couple of questions real
    quickly. One is, do you believe that the categories that this
    bill creates for new chemicals will or could negatively impact
    specialty chemical manufacturers?
        Mr. Jones. The new chemical provisions, Congressman, is
    that what you are---
        Mr. Latta. Right.
        Mr. Jones. I don't believe so. I believe that we will be
    able to make decisions in a timely manner under the Lautenberg-
    Vitter bill on new chemicals.
        Mr. Latta. And again, could you define that timely manner?
        Mr. Jones. So the current requirement is that we evaluate
    compounds within 90 days. If we see a problem, we need to
    inform the submitter. Under the Lautenberg-Vitter bill, that 90
    days remains. We have the ability to extend it by 90 days or
    two periods of time, but it shouldn't exceed another 90 days.
    So we are still talking about very short periods of time for
    our review of new chemicals.
        Mr. Latta. OK. And can you also discuss EPA's confidential
    business information improvements, and how are those working?
        Mr. Jones. So we are working very hard to do what I think
    of as the government's role as it relates to confidential
    business information, which is to ensure that we are asking the
    question, is this claim eligible for confidential business
    information treatment. Historically, we have been somewhat
    passive which, if someone had asserted it, we basically would
    just accept that. We are now doing our part, which is to make
    sure that an assertive claim actually meets the statutory
    criteria around that. And over the last several years, we have
    successfully removed over 1,000 claims that have been made just
    because they were not warranted by the statute, or the
    manufacturer, when they went back and looked at their files,
    they didn't think the claim was necessary anymore. So some of
    it has been us doing more work, some of it has been us working
    with the manufacturers to ensure that they were keeping their
    files accurate related to their CBI claims.
        Mr. Latta. And also when you reviewed the bill, would those
    improvements be consistent with the bill?
        Mr. Jones. Generally, they would be. There is a
    grandfathering-in of CBI claims that--one that was made before
    the bill would pass would be considered to be CBI that would
    potentially impact some of this cleanup effort that I am
    referring to.
        Mr. Latta. OK. And also, how do you believe the
    coordination has been between the EPA and the TSCA Interagency
    Testing Committee?
        Mr. Jones. So historically, it has not been particularly
    active, in that other agencies are not big users of that
    committee, whereby they are able to ask us to generate health
    and safety data for their purposes. The bill allows that
    activity to continue in the future. It would be interesting--I
    really can't predict how much other agencies would be feeling
    more empowered to ask EPA to use its authorities to require
    companies to generate health and safety data for their
    purposes, but it is definitely an authority in the Lautenberg-
    Vitter Bill.
        Mr. Latta. OK. And finally, if I could, I know there have
    been some questions that other members have asked about how you
    have defined certain words that have--that were in your
    testimony. On page 4, you talk about that, as stated in the
    principles, legislation provides the EPA with authority to
    establish risk-based safety standards. How would you define
    that risk-based safety standards? Would you see the
    stakeholders being involved, how would you see--come to that
    definition?
        Mr. Jones. So we would definitely involve stakeholders in
    that--I will give a few examples based on implementation of
    other statutes. The EPA would consider, for a chemical that was
    a quantified carcinogen, that the calculated risk of that
    compound not creating more than a 1 in a million chance of
    increasing cancer risk to be a health-based safety standard,
    where we have identified in a quantifiable way in that case the
    level at which we believe is protective, based exclusively on a
    health and safety consideration. So that would be an example of
    one. It doesn't mean under this bill we would say that the
    number, but we would include dialog with stakeholders to say,
    here is an example, do you think this is the appropriate
    health-based safety standard? Should it be 1 in a million, 1 in
    100,000, 1 in 10 million, before we ultimately came down on
    what we thought was the appropriate health-based safety
    standard.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, I
    see my time has expired, and I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now
    recognizes my colleague from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jones,
    we appreciate you coming today. And, Mr. Chairman, I really
    appreciate you holding this hearing. We have been hammering
    away at this for some number of years, and I actually think,
    with the Senate bill and with this committee's efforts, we may
    be productive. So, yes, let's keep our fingers crossed.
        Mr. Jones, one thing we have been talking about is one of
    the problems with the current act is that roughly 60,000
    existing chemicals were grandfathered-in in 1976, and as you
    testified, there is no criteria to trigger an independent EPA
    review of an existing chemical. So under the Senate bill, all
    the existing chemicals in commerce would be identified and
    prioritized for further evaluation. I want to talk to you
    about--a little bit about that this morning.
        I think given the number of chemicals that are out there,
    and the subset of chemicals that are actually used in commerce,
    we all support prioritizing EPA action that might pose a
    serious risk, but in order for prioritization to work, EPA
    needs to have the information to make the informed decisions on
    how to prioritize it.
        So as I understood your answers to Mr. Green's questions,
    for existing chemicals, if the EPA wants to trigger some kind
    of a review, they have got to promulgate a rule before they do
    that, is that right?
        Mr. Jones. Under current law, that is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. Yes, and then under--as what--1009 what would
    happen would be, as a threshold, the EPA would be directed to
    review the safety of all existing chemicals in commerce, is
    that correct?
        Mr. Jones. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. And so that sounds good, but if the EPA is
    going to review all of those chemicals, they are going to need
    to get a lot of data that they don't currently have. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Jones. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. And so I guess what I want to ask you is,
    under the current drafting of S. 1009, is there a minimum set
    of information the EPA will have for each chemical so they can
    decide how to review and prioritize it for action?
        Mr. Jones. We think that we will very likely tailor the
    data that we are interested in having for a safety assessment
    based on some of the characteristics of the chemical. So, for
    example, chemicals that are persistent bioaccumulative and have
    some toxicity, we would require a lot more data for, health and
    safety data, than for a chemical which our--the evidence that
    we have based on models that we used, predicted it as likely to
    be of lower toxicity. So we would probably tailor the data we
    would like to see for our assessments based on characteristics
    that we know.
        Ms. DeGette. Now, in the bill itself, is there actually any
    standard set for the data that you would use or obtain, or is--
    would--are you just left to decide that for yourselves?
        Mr. Jones. The bill as drafted gives the Agency quite a bit
    of discretion as to what data it would want to compel
    generation of.
        Ms. DeGette. And does it lay out what criteria the Agency
    would use to decide which--or--you see what I am saying? It is
    like there are so many chemicals out there----
        Mr. Jones. Yes. It gives the criteria for the order in
    which we prioritize things as high.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, S. 1009 also changes the requirements
    for entry into commerce of new chemicals. It is my
    understanding that maybe as 80 or 90 percent of new chemical
    applications currently contain no data on potential impacts to
    human health. Is that correct?
        Mr. Jones. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. So under current law, the EPA wouldn't be
    making an affirmative decision about a new chemical's safety
    before it enters the market, is that correct?
        Mr. Jones. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. Under S. 1009, the EPA must make a decision
    about the likely safety of a new chemical, is that right?
        Mr. Jones. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. But will the EPA have data about the new
    chemicals to accurately make the safety determination?
        Mr. Jones. So we expect that there will be, for many
    situations, the models that we use to predict hazard will allow
    us to make such determination--likely to meet the safety
    standard determination for many chemicals. There will be some
    chemicals which, when we use predictive models, they are going
    to raise enough concerns that we are going to want to see
    health and safety data generated.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. Well, I appreciate you--I appreciate that
    answer, but I am a little concerned because it seems a little
    bit vague, and I think that is one of the areas of this bill we
    can really work on, is setting clearly what data the EPA needs
    to be given for certain classes of chemicals. So I look forward
    to working with you and also with the committee on those
    issues.
        Thanks.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentlelady's time has expired. The chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you
    for the--once again continuing this discussion.
        Mr. Jones, two questions for you. The first is, will, in
    your analysis of the Vitter bill, did--will it require an
    expansion, will it need more FTEs, anything along that line to
    be able to carry out the new mission?
        Mr. Jones. In the absence of additional resources, the
    number of chemicals we would be able to move through the
    process will definitely be meaningfully constrained.
        Mr. McKinley. Will be what?
        Mr. Jones. Meaningfully constrained. The number will be
    smaller than I think most people would hope.
        Mr. McKinley. So the answer to the question, are we going
    to have--are you going to need more FTEs?
        Mr. Jones. It is likely that additional FTE would be
    necessary to achieve the kind of numbers, I think, that
    generally people would expect from the Agency.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. Secondly, is the--some of the criticism
    of the existing bill and the Vitter language is about the
    burden placed on EPA to express the need before they make the
    request to the companies to fulfill that assessment. Can you
    share with us the value of why the EPA should make the first
    step in determining the need?
        Mr. Jones. The need for health and safety data?
        Mr. McKinley. Yes. Right.
        Mr. Jones. So the Agency is pretty well equipped, and we
    are also coming at it with the simple desire to understand
    health and safety. So we have got both the--well, largely, we
    have the scientific expertise to be able to judge whether or
    not health and safety data is necessary, and what kind to make
    a safety determination.
        Mr. McKinley. So if--again, I--that--be more specific with
    that. So I am just trying to understand that. So--because some
    are saying they don't think you should make the first step, the
    company should provide that chemical and their product data. Do
    you think it best for you to first make the--make your own
    analysis to determine that there is still a need----
        Mr. Jones. The----
        Mr. McKinley [continuing]. Before you ask them to produce
    it?
        Mr. Jones. Yes, I think that we have got a pretty
    sophisticated way of understanding where we need information
    and where we don't. And as I was answering the question to
    Congresswoman DeGette, we are able to do it in a way that is
    tailored to the chemical and the issues that the particular
    chemical expresses. And so I think in many ways, it can be the
    most efficient way for the Agency to identify we need this data
    but not that data.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. And maybe to add one last in the little
    time I have left. I think I heard it--the question but I wasn't
    sure I heard the answer again, and that is, with the passage of
    this, this--you really think that this is an improvement for
    health safety and for children, pregnant women, we--on and on
    and on. This is going to be an improvement over what we have
    now?
        Mr. Jones. Well, as I said in answer to the first time that
    question was asked, that the way in which we are trying to
    think about it is does this give us the tools to ensure safe
    chemicals in the United States, and as I pointed out, I think
    that there are a number of areas which are meaningful
    deficiencies that would need to be addressed before we could
    say that this bill will give us the tools we need to ensure
    safe chemicals in the United States.
        Mr. McKinley. So--and the bottom line here, you think this
    really is an improvement?
        Mr. Jones. I think it needs some improvement.
        Mr. McKinley. OK, it still needs to be worked. OK, and I am
    OK with that, but I just wanted--are we--if it is moving in the
    right direction to make sure that it is an improvement over
    what we have now.
        Mr. Jones. There are aspects that are moving in the right
    direction, and there are aspects that are not.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Shimkus. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman
    yield?
        Mr. McKinley. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Let me follow up on just two quick questions.
        Part of the 85,000 list of chemicals, there are some that
    are no longer in commerce or in manufacturing processes, and
    those--you could be--probably easily drop them off, isn't that
    true?
        Mr. Jones. Well, interestingly, we would have to go through
    a process to drop them off, and as a general matter,
    manufacturers, even if they are not making the chemicals, like
    them on the list because at some point in the future, they want
    to bring that into their production, for whatever marketing
    reasons they have, they can do that if it is not on the list.
        Mr. Shimkus. But under the new law, if passed as-is, they
    are still going to be looked at then. The whole idea is to get
    through this list in some time.
        Mr. Jones. Under 1009, it actually creates two lists. One
    is an active list, things that are actively in commerce, and
    one is an inactive list, things that are no longer in commerce.
        Mr. Shimkus. Right.
        Mr. Jones. Manufacturers can go from inactive to active by
    noticing EPA.
        Mr. Shimkus. Let me ask another question. Is there a
    difference between chemicals that go actually into consumer
    consumption or handling, versus chemicals that are involved
    just in the manufacturing process that stays within the walls
    of a facility?
        Mr. Jones. The way in which we evaluate them is very
    different, but we have jurisdiction over both. We evaluate them
    very differently. One is, we are looking at the exposures that
    a consumer would get, and the other, we are going to look at
    what happens in the workplace to the worker if the worker is
    exposed.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great, thank you. And the Chair now recognizes
    the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
    Jones, for your testimony here and your statement here, and
    your position at EPA.
        Many stakeholders have raised concerns about the need to
    protect vulnerable populations. That is my concern in talking
    with you during my 5 minutes. Any system needs modernization.
    TSCA, I am sure, can use it too, but an essential component is
    to really address how vulnerable populations will be affected.
        Any reform, for example, of this statute that fails to
    adequately protect children or pregnant women would be a
    terrible failure. Vulnerable populations do include infants and
    children, the elderly, the disabled and anyone living in a
    close proximity to a chemical facility. The National Academies
    of Science, in their 2009 report called Science and Decision--
    Decisions, recommended that vulnerable populations should
    receive special attention at every stage of the risk-assessment
    process. S. 1009 makes only two references to subpopulations.
    Vulnerable populations are not addressed in the safety
    standard, and are not required to be considered in the safety
    determination. This strikes me as a glaring oversight. Even
    using the problematic terminology of this bill, a chemical
    should not be deemed to meet the safety standard if it poses an
    unreasonable risk to a vulnerable subpopulation.
        So I have a couple of yes/no questions to ask you, because
    I hope you agree with this. Do you think a chemical that poses
    an unreasonable risk to a subpopulation should be able to pass
    the safety standard under a reformed TSCA?
        Mr. Jones. No.
        Mrs. Capps. And to follow up, as a general matter, should a
    chemical that poses a serious or substantial risk to a
    vulnerable subpopulation be considered acceptable under a
    reformed TSCA safety standard?
        Mr. Jones. No.
        Mrs. Capps. Well, I thank you for that. That puts you on
    the record there. Turning now to the risk-management decisions
    that will be taken when a chemical does not meet the safety
    standard under a reformed TSCA.
        Mr. Jones, should risk-management actions under a reformed
    TSCA ensure that unreasonable risks, including those to
    vulnerable populations, are addressed?
        Mr. Jones. Yes.
        Mrs. Capps. And should risk-management actions under a
    reformed TSCA ensure that a serious or substantial risk to a
    vulnerable population should be addressed?
        Mr. Jones. Yes.
        Mrs. Capps. Partly in answer to a previous question--well,
    let us put it this way: The Senate made some progress in their
    legislation. Are there some areas that we could improve upon
    that you would like to highlight in less than 2 minutes?
        Mr. Jones. Sure. Thank you for that. And I am only in this
    position because of the fine education I got at the University
    of California, Santa Barbara. And thank you for----
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much. That doesn't hurt your
    standing in my eyes.
        Mr. Jones. So we think that the kinds of improvements that
    are necessary to get this bill to the place where we think it
    gives us the tools we need to ensure safe chemicals in the
    United States are along the following. That there need to be
    meaningful deadlines on the Agency, that the safety standard
    should be clear and understood by all parties as to being a
    risk-based safety standard. The kind of analysis that we have
    gotten bogged down because of the least burdensome requirements
    under existing TSCA shouldn't be replaced with additional
    analysis that does not add a lot of value to the ultimate
    decision making. And I also think that there needs to be a
    balanced approach to preemption, which I currently don't think
    the bill achieves.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you. Thank you very much for that
    summary.
        Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of reforming TSCA, in
    addition to wanting us to pay special attention to this
    particular witness, just because where he received his
    education.
        I do have some serious concerns about the bill before us
    today. The Senate language does not require the protection of
    vulnerable populations in the safety standard or in the risk-
    management decisions, and I think that is a fundamental flaw
    that would affect each of us in our congressional districts.
    Any TSCA reform bill this committee considers should ensure
    that the most vulnerable among us are protected, and this
    protection is real and effective. So I look forward to having
    this committee continue to work on this particular issue.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague. I--just to note that
    right now, there is no--in current law, there is no vulnerable
    population comment, but in the Senate bill I think it is listed
    at least twice. So there is some movement in the--in that
    direction.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from--I am trying to
    find here, gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it
    very much. Thank you for holding this hearing as well.
        I would like to ask a question. Should Congress require a
    minimum number of chemicals to be acted on each year?
        Mr. Jones. That is a great question, Congressman. The
    benefits of having a minimum number of chemicals is that you
    can feel that there is forward progress being made all of the
    time. The downside to it is that, in the absence of meaningful
    resources, you can find the Agency in a situation where it
    can't meet the statutory requirements, or the way in which it
    does so is to by working on easier chemicals, which is not
    really, I think, what the objective is of setting priorities,
    that we would be working on the more complicated, difficult
    compounds first. So there are definitely some pros and cons to
    including a minimum number of chemicals.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK, thank you. Some question that Senate
    Bill 1009 does not require adequate data to prioritize
    chemicals. Does Senate Bill 1009 give the EPA authority to seek
    additional data and info? How do you read Senate Bill 1009?
        Mr. Jones. So that is a good question as well. I think that
    there is a disagreement amongst some of the people reading the
    bill as to whether or not we have the ability to require the
    generation of health and safety data if it is not already a
    high priority chemical. We read the bill to allow us to be able
    to do that. I think the fact that there are people reading the
    same words and coming to a different answer to that question is
    another example where it might be useful to seek clarity on
    that point.
        Mr. Bilirakis. All right, thank you very much. Next
    question, would Senate Bill 1009 allow the EPA to assess the
    safety of chemicals that are persistent bioaccumulative and
    toxic, and require risk management for those that fail to meet
    the safety standard?
        Mr. Jones. The bill allows the Agency to do that, but--not
    create the explicit requirements to give any priority to
    persistence or bioaccumulation, but it certainly allows the
    Agency to evaluate them and take risk management if warranted.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you for your response.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yield to me----
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. For a quick--so risk is defined
    as hazard plus exposure. Is that how you define it?
        Mr. Jones. Hazard times exposure. Yes, hazard times
    exposure.
        Mr. Shimkus. So define for me the difference between
    substantial and unreasonable. So if you have substantial risk,
    OK, we know what risk is, we know what unreasonable risk, so
    what are--I guess that is two adjectives, but I mean what is
    the difference between those two?
        Mr. Jones. I actually think it really depends on all of the
    other words that are used in the statute to describe what the
    Agency is required to find. I don't believe unreasonable risk,
    those two words by themselves, mean that the Agency has to
    conduct a cost benefit analysis. I do believe the courts have
    said those words used in conjunction with a lot of other words
    create the requirement of a risk benefit balancing, but the
    words themselves I don't think mean, to the layperson or
    anybody who can read the dictionary, means cost benefit. But it
    is a lot of the words that are used in conjunction with the
    actual standard that, I think, gives it its full meaning.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great, thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes, who has
    been waiting very patiently.
        Mr. McNerney. Waiting and listening, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Jones, in your testimony, I believe you stated that S.
    1009 requires affirmative standards. Would you please elaborate
    on that, especially regarding enforcement, how those
    affirmative standards would be enforced in the new law?
        Mr. Jones. Thank you. That comment reflects specifically to
    the new chemicals provision in 1009. Under existing law, the
    Agency, when a new chemical is submitted, we have 90 days to
    evaluate it, and only if we identify a problem are we able to
    work with the manufacturer to prevent it from being introduced
    into commerce. Under S. 1009, it requires the Agency to make an
    affirmative finding of meeting the safety standard before the
    manufacturer can move that chemical into commerce.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. That is a good thing, I think.
        Mr. Jones. I would think so, yes.
        Mr. McNerney. You also stated that in S. 1009, the language
    would make it as difficult as the unreasonable risk or least
    burdensome language in TSCA to enforce rules as it has been for
    TSCA with asbestos. Can those--can that language be modified in
    your opinion to remove some of those barriers, and make it
    reasonable to enforce?
        Mr. Jones. For any of the issues that we have identified,
    the devil is always in the details, but I think that changes
    could be made in a way that would not send us into an endless
    amount of analysis before we could ultimately make protective
    decisions.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, who would you recommend that the
    committee consult with on that language?
        Mr. Jones. I think it is important to have all
    stakeholders. I mean obviously you can't have literally all
    stakeholders, to be bringing all people to the table, as I
    think you get the best outcome and you can get a common
    understanding of what--the words you are using are the words
    everybody believes that they mean.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, to change the subject a little bit.
    The European Union has made significant progress on some of the
    60,000 chemicals that have been grandfathered. Is that correct?
        Mr. Jones. The European Union, which has a very different
    model, has definitely made some progress in the universe of
    chemicals sold in Europe.
        Mr. McNerney. Would S. 1009 allow you to--the EPA to
    collaborate with the European Union on identifying some of
    those, and classifying some of those chemicals?
        Mr. Jones. We definitely would be able to collaborate. I
    think the fundamental problem we and the Europeans are dealing
    with as it relates to that collaboration is they have required
    manufacturers to generate a lot of health and safety data, and
    the European Union under their rules cannot share that
    information with us. They have to have the company's
    permission. The companies find themselves in a situation where
    they negotiated agreements across multiple companies, and
    unless everybody agrees, they can't give us the information.
    And so I am hard-pressed to know what U.S. domestic law could
    do to actually break that log jam. I think we have to----
        Mr. McNerney. OK.
        Mr. Jones [continuing]. Work something out, not under law,
    but with manufacturers to figure out how to get access to that
    treasure-trove of health and safety data.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. That is a good answer. Regarding
    resources, if S. 1009 becomes law, would the Agency need
    greater resources to carry out the various rule makings laid
    out in the bill?
        Mr. Jones. I think where we would run into issues with
    expectations, expectations of, I assume, the Congress and
    certainly I think of the American public, is that the number of
    assessments we would be able to do under existing resources
    would probably, for most people, be considered to be
    inadequate. So to change that, we would need resources. I do
    think there are models out there that involve the industry
    financing that are used in the FDA and our pesticides program
    that are worth looking at.
        Mr. McNerney. So in S. 1009, there aren't any dedicated
    funding sources?
        Mr. Jones. No, there are not.
        Mr. McNerney. So that could be interpreted as one of the
    weaknesses in that law--in that proposed law?
        Mr. Jones. One of the administration principles is there be
    a sustained source of funding, and that is not addressed in the
    bill.
        Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Jones, in our first hearing, witnesses stated that EPA
    needed specific statutory authority for chemical
    prioritization. Is that important?
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Congressman. I think it is important
    because there are so many chemicals in commerce that it is
    important to direct the Agency to focus on those that may
    present risks earlier in the process rather than later. And in
    the absence of that, you could see wily bureaucrats, of which I
    am one, working on easy things because we can do a lot of easy
    things. So I think being directed to work on those things that
    are the highest priority is a very important thing when you
    have a universe that big.
        Mr. Pitts. Does S. 1009 require that chemicals be
    prioritized?
        Mr. Jones. Yes, it does.
        Mr. Pitts. Does S. 1009 allow EPA to consider potentially
    vulnerable subpopulations in making decisions to prioritize
    chemicals for review, and in subsequent safety assessments and
    determination?
        Mr. Jones. In safety assessments, we are required to
    consider vulnerable populations. That is not required of safety
    determinations or--in the priority setting. We are not
    prohibited, but it is not required for the other two.
        Mr. Pitts. S. 1009 lays out framework requirements for
    prioritizing existing chemicals, gathering, testing data and
    information, conducting safety assessments and making safety
    determinations. Does a reformed TSCA need to set these
    requirements out as four separate steps?
        Mr. Jones. The bill has a lot of what we were referring to
    as framework requirements, we think we counted a total of about
    17. I think it is possible to collapse a number of the
    frameworks down, and not lose some of what the drafters
    intended. Most were drafted--making it more streamlined and
    straightforward.
        Mr. Pitts. S. 1009 has provisions requiring that EPA sort
    chemicals for review as either a high or low priority. Should
    there be more categories than just high or low priority?
        Mr. Jones. I don't see a huge amount of value in adding
    another category other than high or low.
        Mr. Pitts. Are you concerned that you cannot seek judicial
    review of the prioritization screening decisions?
        Mr. Jones. That is a very good question. I think it runs
    counter to generally how we run the government, that an Agency
    action that ends all other downstream consequences is unable to
    be challenged. So a high-priority decision--when we do that,
    downstream things have to happen. And so it doesn't bother me
    that that is not subject to judicial review, because the
    downstream thing ultimately will. A low priority under 1009
    actually stops all action. EPA at that point is done. No more
    work. Stop. That to me is a final Agency action, and although I
    would like to think all of our final Agency actions shouldn't
    be--no one should be bothering us about them, I--as a matter of
    good government, I think that it is important to allow people
    who disagree with a final Agency action to seek review of that
    in an appropriate judicial proceeding. And so I think that
    having a law not be subject to judicial review is not a good
    place for the government to be in.
        Mr. Pitts. And managing the many chemicals that you need to
    review, how long do you expect this process to take, both to
    prioritize and schedule for assessment?
        Mr. Jones. The prioritization process I think will happen,
    the initial one, very quickly. The initial assessments will
    happen within a couple of years. I think it will be many years
    before we have evaluated all the high priority chemicals.
        Mr. Pitts. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time.
        Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
    Cassidy, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cassidy. Mr. Jones, I apologize if someone else has
    asked. I had to step out.
        To prove safety by the first--to prove that something is
    not at risk, you have to prove a negative. It is very difficult
    to prove a negative. How do you prove a negative?
        Mr. Jones. So we rely on analytical tools that often
    include data, often include models. So if something does not
    express hazard, it is impossible for it to have risk, if
    something doesn't----
        Mr. Cassidy. Now, that is--now, let me ask, because we had
    a hearing about the risk of something for breast cancer. It is
    a big concern of mine. My wife is a breast cancer surgeon, and
    I am a physician, so we were on a vacation so we pulled down
    the literature, and there is a body of literature for this
    particular chemical, that it could cause breast cancer, but--
    and somebody did a regression analysis and goes, you have got
    to be kidding me. There is obesity, alcohol, cigarette use,
    family history, and here is a very marginal effect that may or
    may not. But the witness was passionately and quite emotionally
    declaring that this particular chemical had an impact upon
    breast cancer.
        So I guess I would come back to no risk at all may be in
    the eye of the beholder, right, or of the interest group or
    whatever. In that situation, what does this law allow you to
    do?
        Mr. Jones. Well, it would require us to assess the risk of
    that chemical, and make a determination as to whether or not
    that risk met a safety standard.
        Mr. Cassidy. I guess what I am after, the safety standard
    seems a nebulous thing to me.
        Mr. Jones. So--yes.
        Mr. Cassidy. And so, again, this advocacy was just so
    passionate in their emotion, even though the retrogression
    analysis showed that the effect was nonexistent or minimal, if
    it existed. It just couldn't be teased out. So would that--
    would this nebulous standard say, listen, best science shows
    that it is obesity, family history, alcohol and cigarettes.
    This marginal effect we can't prove so we move on, or we just
    say, no, we have to say this is not safe?
        Mr. Jones. We have a pretty long record of how we calculate
    risk, and what we view to be risks that are beyond negligible.
    They involve using standards such as the increased lifetime
    cancer risk of a substance, they include calculations that we
    use for other kinds of effects where we look for a certain
    margin of exposure between the exposure level and when
    adversity occurs, and there is a general understanding about
    how we----
        Mr. Cassidy. So I think, I gather, that industry would be
    able to look at a basically kind of common-law standard, if you
    will, something that this--it isn't nebulous, you are telling
    me, but there is something they could look at and say, below
    this threshold, we know we are OK?
        Mr. Jones. That is correct.
        Mr. Cassidy. Then let me also ask, I was struck once in
    some hearings we had that the EPA's current method of analysis
    does not take into account a threshold effect, that they
    extrapolate all the way down, if we know this level really
    causes damage, but we know at this level it is in the
    environment, and common exposure doesn't cause damage. I am a
    doc, aflatoxin is a great example of something we are all
    exposed to, but it is only above the threshold has a problem,
    EPA, as I gather, does not take that into account.
        Mr. Jones. The vast majority of the chemical assessments we
    do are based on the threshold model that you are describing. A
    relatively small number, in particular, those that are
    carcinogens, where there has not been demonstrated the
    threshold that you are describing, we use the model that you
    are describing. That is a relatively small number of chemicals.
        That being said, we have gotten some advice from the NAS to
    begin to think about how to use models other than the threshold
    model that I just described. But right now, the vast majority
    of chemical assessments that we do rely on the threshold model
    that you are describing.
        Mr. Cassidy. OK, I had a little bit of a different
    impression, so I am reassured regarding that.
        The subpopulation groups also seem to be something which
    is, you know, going to be difficult to define. I know that
    there are always two or three standard deviations out, somebody
    with a genetic predisposition to, fill in the blank. And it may
    be an environmental exposure will fill in the blank. You with
    me? Take type 1 diabetes.
        Mr. Jones. Um-hum.
        Mr. Cassidy. There seems to be a genetic component, but
    some interaction with the environment. How would you ever--it
    almost seems like if you really chase that out, you are always
    going to find some subpopulation with a genetic exposure which,
    combined with the environmental, is problematic.
        I know you have thought about this. What are your thoughts?
        Mr. Jones. So there are either a couple of things that we
    have--I like to give the example of what we have done in our
    pesticide program, which is a similar requirement around
    significant, highly exposed and vulnerable populations. We have
    literally identified the populations that we look at in terms
    of age, and we look at children at six-month intervals when
    they are very young, and then we go to 1-year intervals, and
    then we go to, you know, women of childbearing age and those
    over 50. And we also do it by race and ethnicity. And so we
    have defined them, we have taken comment on that, and it is
    then widely understood here are the populations below the
    general population that we are going to look at for every
    assessment that we do.
        I would expect that we would do something similar here.
    They may not be the exact same subgroups that we would look at,
    but we would go through a process of identifying them and
    asking the public to give us feedback on it. The other thing is
    that we, as a general matter, use an uncertainty factor to
    capture the general variability within the population as it
    relates to intraspecies sensitivity.
        So that tenfold factor we use to try to broadly capture
    that phenomenon. When there is information that leads us to
    believe that for a specific effect, something beyond that 10 is
    necessary, then we use that to inform our assessment.
        Mr. Cassidy. I will finish by saying your testimony is very
    reassuring, but I remember reading the National Academy of
    Science's report on your formaldehyde report, and they really
    felt like the conclusions of the report were not based--were
    not supported by the data which had been amalgamated, thinking
    specifically of tumors in the nasal laryngeal area in rats, and
    yet EPA kind of swore by it.
        So thank you for your testimony, and I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Don't you hate these real smart members of
    Congress who ask these--make us all look bad?
        So last but not least, my colleague from the great State of
    Georgia, Mr. Barrow, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Jones,
    for being here today.
        I know that the EPA hasn't yet taken a position on S. 1009
    all together--in its all together, but I want to see if we
    can't draw some comparisons between current law and the
    proposal, and just get some idea where we can find some--for
    example, are there any areas of the bill that, in the opinion
    of the EPA, are better than current law?
        Mr. Jones. Yes. Mandating the Agency evaluating existing
    chemicals is a non-trivial improvement over the existing law.
    That is not something we are required to do right now. Giving
    the EPA the ability to require manufacturers to generate health
    and safety findings, using order authority, is dramatically
    more efficient than the process that we have under the existing
    law. And then the requirement that EPA make an affirmative
    finding for a new chemical before it enters commerce, I think
    is also a pretty significant improvement.
        Mr. Barrow. Flipside, any areas of the proposed legislation
    that in your opinion are worse than current law?
        Mr. Jones. Yes, I will say that the preemption provision is
    dramatically less--I think at the end of the day would be less
    protective than the current preemption under TSCA.
        Mr. Barrow. I am kind of reminded of Lincoln's comment
    about liberty, you know, the sheep praises the shepherd for
    driving the wolf away from his neck, and the wolf condemns him
    for the same act. Clearly, we need a new word of liberty, you
    know, new agreement on what it means. So I want to talk about
    protection in this context, the interplay between Federal and
    State regulations that is a real major policy issue we have to
    deal with.
        One concern that I have is if funding for the big
    regulator, the national regulator, the EPA, is either
    chronically inadequate so that the regulator is malnourished,
    or is highly sporadic as a result of politics, ranksmanship and
    shutdown or what have you. The concern I have is whether or not
    we will have effective regulation if we preempt State, and the
    only regulator who is left on the scene is unable to do his
    job. I have a concern about that, but I also have a concern
    about, you know, the regulator wanting to do its job. You know,
    a regulator that doesn't want to do its job is like going bird
    hunting and having to tote the dog. But a regulator that can't
    do its job is like going bird hunting without the dog. I am not
    sure which is better. Each is equally ineffective as far as the
    customer and the taxpayer is concerned.
        So help me understand, in your experience, what has been
    the benefit of the current regime of dual State and Federal
    regulations on the one hand, and what has been the cost of the
    current regime, and how would you suggest we go forward?
        Mr. Jones. I think the benefit is a good part of why we are
    here; that because the Federal law is ineffective, States have
    stepped into the breach and have been doing the work necessary
    to protect the people in their States, which has created an
    incentive on the part of the industry, in my view, to raise the
    bar of the Federal law so that States don't feel compelled to
    step into the breach, because the Federal Government is
    ensuring the safety of their citizens. I think that is the----
        Mr. Barrow. You described the ideal or optimal role of the
    State regulator as being a pride toward better action, better
    regulation nationwide is how you describe it.
        Mr. Jones. Um-hum.
        Mr. Barrow. As being basically a driving force for
    getting----
        Mr. Jones. I think that they have been the driving force in
    the chemical space that has been basically the only regulation.
        Mr. Barrow. Aren't you--don't you share the concerns though
    of others though that if you do have a nationwide standard, if
    the regulator is malnourished or underfunded, that that could
    be a problem as well, they can't keep up with the demand? So
    you don't want to replace something bad with something that----
        Mr. Jones. No, exactly.
        Mr. Barrow [continuing]. Does not exist.
        Mr. Jones. It is a challenging dynamic that you are trying
    to ultimately achieve, where the absence of action on the
    Federal Government doesn't mean nobody gets protected, that it
    keeps--the potential threat of that happening keeps people like
    me on top of our job, moving the ball forward, which also
    creates the dynamic where the States feel like they don't feel
    like they need to regulate because it is going to be taken care
    of at a national level. And I think that is very----
        Mr. Barrow. We should understand--you can understand that
    even if you are doing a good job at the national level, there
    could be some States you just want to regulate a whole lot
    more?
        Mr. Jones. That absolutely I think would be the case.
        Mr. Barrow. And the problem we have is not the fact that we
    have two regulators in any given one place.
        Mr. Jones. Right.
        Mr. Barrow. We only have 51 regulators as far as the
    country as a whole is concerned. You recognize the challenge
    and burden that is to industry.
        Mr. Jones. That is right, and I think that that is the
    flipside of the--that is why I think it has been so hard for
    people to come together to figure out what is exact--what is
    that sweet spot there. It is untenable to try to sell a product
    in the United States, and you need to meet 51 or 57 different
    requirements. At the same time, you don't want to leave
    everybody unprotected because people here are not able to get
    their job done, or don't have the tools to get their job done.
    And trying to find that sweet spot, I think is very
    challenging.
        Mr. Barrow. Thank you. With my--with that, my time is up.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time.
        And I--just a point. I think there are only like four
    States who really have the capability or are involved in this
    space, versus the other ones that aren't. And when we had ECOS
    testifying, many States had no capability to do this intensive
    evaluation. So I just throw that in.
        Mr. Jones, a delightful testimony. I usually don't say that
    very often. Great job. I think you could see from the interest
    by members present that there is a desire to try to get this
    right, and find the sweet spot, and I hope we can continue
    moving forward. You are a great credit to the Agency, and we
    thank you for joining us. And we dismiss you and ask the final
    panel to come forward.
        We would like to welcome the third panel here, and many of
    you have been sitting in the room for a couple of hours now, so
    we appreciate your diligence and we look forward to your
    testimony. I think the first two panels went real well, and we
    look forward to yours.
        So I will just do the introductions as your opening
    statements are called for. It is great to welcome back Cal
    Dooley, former colleague, now President and CEO of the American
    Chemistry Council. Obviously, your full statement has been
    submitted for the record. You have 5 minutes.

        STATEMENTS OF CAL DOOLEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
        OFFICER, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL; ERNEST ROSENBERG,
       PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN CLEANING
    INSTITUTE; RICHARD A. DENISON, SENIOR SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL
     DEFENSE FUND; DEAN C. GARFIELD, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
    OFFICER, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY COUNCIL; ANDY IGREJAS,
       DIRECTOR, SAFER CHEMICALS, HEALTHY FAMILIES; AND WENDY E.
      WAGNER, JOE A. WORSHAM CENTENNIAL PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
                          TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW

                        STATEMENT OF CAL DOOLEY

        Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, and Ranking Member
    Tonko, and all the members of the committee. I appreciate this
    opportunity to be testifying on behalf of the American
    Chemistry Council, our member companies, as well as 800,000 men
    and women who work every day in the business of chemistry.
        ACC and our member companies are absolutely committed to
    the modernization and the reform of TSCA that will enhance the
    public confidence in the safety of our chemicals, and allow our
    industry and our customer base throughout the value chain to
    continue to be on the forefront of developing innovations that
    improve our everyday lives.
        You know, some of you were in attendance at a hearing that
    this committee had in 2010 on a bill that was introduced to
    reform TSCA by Congressman Waxman. If you were here at that
    hearing, it was actually one that was fairly contentious, and
    Richard Denison and I were passionate defenders of our
    constituencies, but unfortunate, you know, that contentious
    dialog we had there was a reflection of what--the failure to
    find a common ground or a balanced approach to a comprehensive
    TSCA reform. It is unfortunate over the last few years, even on
    the Senate hearings where Mr. Denison, representing EDF, and I
    have testified, we were also very polarized and very
    contentious in some of our dialog. And that was a reflection of
    the failure for Republicans and Democrats to come together to
    find a balanced comprehensive reform to TSCA that could secure
    bipartisan support.
        You know, that all changed just this last year when, thanks
    to the leadership of Senator Lautenberg and Senator Vitter,
    they brought together diverse constituencies to work out some
    of our differences, and develop not a perfect bill by either of
    our perspectives, or any of our perspectives, but develop a
    balanced approach that could provide for meaningful
    improvements to TSCA regulations. And it was really that
    balanced approach that was also groundbreaking in that we were
    able to develop the support of 25 members of the U.S. Senate,
    equally split, well, 12 to 13, between Republicans and
    Democrats. Again, unprecedented. And I really appreciate the
    work that this committee has done to try to find ways which we
    can build upon the progress that was achieved in the Senate,
    because our industry, and the value chain at large, has also
    increased their support in TSCA reform, because it is not only
    the chemical industry, it is the information technology
    industry, there is actually now an alliance of about 100
    different associations representing everyone from the retail
    federation to toy manufacturers to automobile manufacturers,
    technology, semiconductors, that have all come together to
    support the CSIA, because they see it as a balanced and a
    meaningful reform of the existing TSCA legislation.
        Also unprecedented is not only industry, but you also have
    organized labor that has joined in support of TSCA reform. You
    have the electrical workers and IBW, the North American
    Building Trades, the machinists, aerospace, transportation, and
    the ironworkers have also joined in support.
        So the message here is is that, you know, something that is
    positive is happening here. We have also heard in some of the
    comments of Jim Jones as well as Administrator Gina Jackson
    that the CSIA really does set the foundation for meaningful
    progress to see reform of TSCA today. It is also, I think,
    important that when you look at the comments by former
    Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, and Charlie Auer who was
    manager of the TSCA Program under President Bush, as well as
    Steve Owens who was President Obama's appointment that had
    jurisdiction over TSCA reform, that have also came and support
    and endorse CSIA. And they did so because they recognize that
    they address many of the problems that they had concerned with
    implementation of TSCA. It requires a systematic evaluation of
    all grandfathered chemicals for the first time. It prioritizes
    chemicals for EPA reviews so chemicals with the greatest need
    get the first and greatest attention. It gives EPA more
    efficient authority and ability to get the data that they need
    to make the determinations, and it requires EPA to make more
    information available to the public, a leading goal of
    environmental advocates and industry alike.
        You know, we recognize at ACC that there are some members
    in the NGO community that would like to see some reforms and
    some modifications of the existing law, but when we look at the
    5 issues that they surfaced early on, we think that those can
    be addressed in a meaningful and appropriate way that can build
    and improve upon CSIA, but does not, I guess, disrupt or create
    an imbalance in this coalition that could put us back into the
    gridlock that has been characterized in our ability, or our
    lack of ability, to achieve TSCA reform over the past better
    part of 37 years.
        You know, I will be pleased to respond in detail to a lot
    of the questions you have, but my message here is, is that, you
    know, this bill isn't viewed by being perfect by industry, and
    I know Dr. Denison will say it is not viewed as perfect by the
    Environmental Defense Fund, but all of you that are serving in
    Congress today, just like I served for 14 years, know that
    there are very few perfect pieces of legislation from one
    constituent's interest. The only way we are going to see
    progress in enacting TSCA reform is it is going to take a
    balanced, comprehensive approach, and I hope that we use the
    CSIA as that foundation. I know that there are opportunities to
    make those modest and marginal reforms that will address some
    of those legitimate issues, but we have to be concerned of the
    delicate balance that we have in place here, and assure that we
    don't disrupt that.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dooley follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.013

        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman's time expired.
        Chair now recognizes Mr. Ernie Rosenberg, President and CEO
    of the American Cleaning Institute.

                     STATEMENT OF ERNEST ROSENBERG

        Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
    Tonko, members of the subcommittee. My name is Ernie Rosenberg,
    thank you, and I am the President and CEO of the American
    Cleaning Institute.
        Our member companies have facilities in the Congressional
    districts of two thirds of the subcommittee membership, and
    the--our members' products are in every home in the country.
        Strengthening the Toxic Substances Control Act is a top
    priority for our member companies. That is why I am here today.
    A strengthened TSCA has the potential to promote consumer and
    environmental protection, while enabling innovation for new and
    improved products. That is why we support the Chemical Safety
    Improvement Act.
        This legislation provides a strong roadmap for action in
    the 113th Congress. We commend the bipartisan efforts that led
    to the development of this measure, and especially the work of
    the late Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator David Vitter.
    Twenty-five Senate Republicans and Democrats are cosponsors of
    what is truly bipartisan legislation.
        A lack of confidence in TSCA has prompted States, local
    jurisdictions and businesses to restrict certain chemicals.
    These actions, unfortunately, create a regulatory and business
    climate that is driven by perceived safety concerns, not by
    sound science.
        Allow me to highlight three important reasons for
    strengthening TSCA. First, a credible Federal program is
    crucial to having both a national market and improve public
    confidence in EPA's regulatory program. Second, TSCA must
    account for ongoing improvements in scientific methods and
    processes being developed by universities, the government and
    industry. This information must be considered by EPA when
    making safety assessments and determinations. Third, TSCA has
    fostered innovative chemical developments in the United States.
    We must ensure that this continues in the years ahead. Cleaning
    product manufacturers are leaders in the development of green
    chemistries that have led to significant energy savings, water
    savings and reductions in waste generation in the United
    States. The development of concentrated laundry and household
    cleaning products allows products that pack greater cleaning
    power in much smaller packaging to provide the benefits I have
    mentioned, and this represents just a few of the innovative,
    convenient and greener products that are available to consumers
    today. TSCA's new chemicals program encourages speed to market
    for such innovative products because of the rigorous and
    flexible way the law addresses this task. EPA relies on the
    strong interaction between government industry to make this
    happen, and has since the--since I was the manager of the
    program at the very beginning. The Chemical Safety Improvement
    Act preserves the efficiencies in the new chemicals review
    process, which are widely acknowledged to work well and are
    critical to innovation. To remain innovative, we need strong
    protection for confidential business information.
        A strengthened TSCA can and must be risk-based, and must
    be--must use the best science. EPA must be able to get the
    information it needs to make an informed chemical assessment
    and risk-management decisions. The Chemical Safety Improvement
    Act strengthens TSCA. It removes barriers to EPA data gathering
    and regulatory actions. I would call upon EPA to evaluate the
    safety of chemicals already in use, and enable the EPA to
    identify and act on chemicals that may pose significant safety
    concerns.
        EPA's enhanced ability to obtain data would encourage
    industry to provide health and safety information to the Agency
    without regulatory delays, and with fewer demands on Agency
    resources.
        CSIA also allows more data to make--be made available to
    the public. For the law to be credible, this is critical. It
    would also open up lines of communication between the States
    and EPA, and allow EPA to share information with them,
    including confidential business information, something TSCA
    does not currently allow. CSIA would allow EPA to meet its
    regulatory obligations, and restore confidence in the Agency's
    ability to do so.
        For the law to become more credible, changes to TSCA must
    be practical, achievable and workable.
        ACIA again thanks you for the opportunity to testify today,
    and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenberg follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.024

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg.
        Now I would like to recognize Dr. Richard Denison, Senior
    Scientist from the Environmental Defense Fund.

                    STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. DENISON

        Mr. Denison. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
    Tonko, and other members of the committee for your interest in
    this issue, and for the opportunity to share EDF's perspective
    on this bipartisan legislation, the Chemical Safety Improvement
    Act.
        I have four key points I would like to make today.
        First, we have a major political opening to address an
    urgent health concern, and to fix a law that everyone believes
    needs reform. Second, the bill before us has many of the
    elements needed for effective reform, and a concern for moving
    reform forward. Third, the bill also has serious problems that
    must be remedied. And fourth, those problems, while serious,
    are fixable.
        The need for reform is more urgent than ever, with science
    increasingly linking exposures to certain chemicals to serious
    health effects.
        My organization has been working to reform TSCA for more
    than 20 years, and I personally for well over a decade. The law
    simply does not work. It is not protecting the health of
    Americans, it doesn't provide the information companies need to
    make sound decisions, and it doesn't give consumers and the
    market the confidence that companies need to run their
    businesses.
        In May of this year, we saw a breakthrough with the
    introduction of CSIA. The bill is both a promising start and
    far from perfect. It contains many elements of TSCA reform that
    need significant changes to actually deliver those reforms. I
    am convinced the problems can be addressed while retaining the
    bipartisan support needed to pass legislation.
        Let me note several ways in which CSIA addresses major
    flaws in current law. For the first time safety reviews would
    be required for all chemical--in order to be made and sold.
    Also for the first time--gain access to confidential business
    information.
        CSIA would address the two main reasons the TSCA safety
    standard has failed. It would generally replace the current
    cost benefit standard with a requirement for a health-only
    standard, and it strikes the least burdensome requirement for
    TSCA regulations that has, as Mr. Jones said, become a recipe
    for paralysis by analysis.
        CSIA would also fix TSCA provisions that thwart EPA's
    ability to get new data on a chemical. It could issue test
    orders and avoid a regulatory process that takes many years.
    And it strikes the catch 22 under TSCA that requires the EPA
    first show evidence of risk in order to require testing. But
    the bill would also erect some major barriers to EPA
    effectively and efficiently using these new tools. The safety
    standard does not ensure protection of vulnerable populations,
    including pregnant women, infants, workers who may be more
    exposed or more susceptible to the effects. The bill would not
    ensure that all information claimed confidential actually
    warrants trade secret protections. It would weaken current TSCA
    by barring the testing of new chemicals, or ones lacking enough
    data to screen their safety. This means EPA would either have
    to give a pass to data poor chemicals that may post a risk, or
    waste time scrutinizing chemicals that more data would show
    pose little risk. And the bill lacks deadlines and has so many
    procedural requirements that just getting the system up and
    running would take years.
        My testimony includes an analysis I have done that is quite
    optimistic in terms of time frames that shows that more than 7
    years would be required to get to the first safety
    determination for a chemical.
        Finally, the bill's sweeping preemption of State authority
    needs to be significantly narrowed so that, for example, States
    can continue to act until and unless EPA takes final action on
    a chemical, and can, with good cause, obtain waivers that allow
    them to go further than a State than EPA--control of chemical
    risks.
        Mr. Chairman, let me end on a positive note. The bipartisan
    bill offers major political opportunity and conserves the basis
    for talks to move reform forward, and while its deficiencies
    are serious, as I mentioned before, I believe they are all
    fixable. I am encouraged that the informal negotiations on the
    bill that have been occurring in the Senate already appear to
    be moving in the right direction, but there is more work to be
    done. I urge the subcommittee to build on the foundation laid
    by S. 1009 to pass meaningful TSCA reform legislation in this
    Congress. The health of--and I thank you for your time today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Denison follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.039

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Dr. Denison.
        Now I would like to recognize Mr. Dean Garfield, President
    and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council.
        Sir, welcome.

                     STATEMENT OF DEAN C. GARFIELD

        Mr. Garfield. Thank you, Mr.--Chairman Shimkus, Ranking
    Member Tonko, members of the committee.
        On behalf of the 54 of the most dynamic and innovative
    companies in the world, as well as the nearly 6 million people
    who work in the tech sector, we thank you for hosting this
    hearing and asking us to testify.
        We have submitted our testimony for the record, so rather
    than repeat it, I will highlight three elements of that
    testimony.
        First, we strongly support this bipartisan and bicameral
    effort to reform TSCA. We think it is a unique opportunity to
    advance our human health and environmental shared interests.
    The tech sector takes very seriously its role as corporate and
    environmental stewards, whether it is in product design where
    we are driving down the energy usage of our products, or in
    sourcing where we are developing and promulgating responsible
    sourcing, paradigms and programs, or in our recycling and reuse
    programs that we have all across the world. We view these
    issues as first priorities and intend to stay engaged. And so
    thank you for your efforts.
        Second, we think this regulatory reform creates an
    opportunity to develop regulatory processes that are timely,
    transport and based on sound science. In that regard, we will
    be placing particular emphasis and paying a lot of attention to
    how you deal with the issue of chemicals and articles. In
    particular, we think it is very important for Congress to give
    guidance to the EPA in that area, but at the same time, we
    don't think it should be done in an import/export control
    fashion, and, in fact, we think the current process whereby the
    EPA has a case-by-case analysis is one that is appropriate and
    should be continued.
        Finally, we strongly agree with Chairman Shimkus' opening
    statement that TSCA reform can and should be an opportunity to
    enhance rather than inhibit innovation. With that in mind, we
    think it is important for three things to occur. One, as the
    previous witness, Mr. Jones, pointed out, we think that the
    approach and direction to EPA has to include some important
    time limits, particularly as it relates to dealing with
    innovative or new uses of chemicals. Second, dealing with
    covered--I am sorry, dealing with confidential business
    information is critically important. Intellectual property is
    key, the lifeblood of the tech sector, and so ensuring that
    confidential business information is maintained as confidential
    is critically important to us. And third and final, the issue
    of preemption is also critically important. We recognize that
    the States have an important role to play in these processes
    and in setting standards, at the same time, we develop locally
    and disseminate globally. And so dealing with 50 or 51
    different standards around human health and environmental
    safety is simply untenable and unworkable for us.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Garfield follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.046

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, sir.
        Now I would like to turn to Mr. Andy Igrejas, National
    Campaign Director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
    Welcome.
        Mr. Igrejas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
    Tonko.
        Mr. Shimkus. Check your microphone.
        Mr. Igrejas. Thank you. Sorry about that.
        Mr. Shimkus. That's all right.

                       STATEMENT OF ANDY IGREJAS

        Mr. Igrejas. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families is a
    coalition of 450 health and environmental organizations,
    industrial unions and steel and automobiles, as well as
    businesses, some large, some small, from around the country.
    There is a broad political spectrum, actually, of membership in
    the organization in the coalition.
        We came together in 2009 to achieve reform of the Toxic
    Substances Control Act, and we agree with the sentiment and we
    are hopeful that that day could soon be at hand with the
    legislation that has been introduced, but I would have to say
    that we believe that legislation is not yet balanced. It needs
    a lot of work in order to become balanced, and it needs clearer
    benefits for public health and the environment sooner, and it
    needs a clearer break with the dysfunctional past of TSCA, that
    I think has been surfaced in your own analysis and your own
    oversight of TSCA.
        I want to put the focus back on public health because it is
    that concern, the mainstream health professional and public
    health community conclusion that, from pediatricians,
    obstetricians, others, endocrinologists, that chemicals are
    contributing to the burden of disease in this country; the
    diseases that affect millions of American families, and TSCA
    reform is fundamentally a solemn exercise in trying to make
    progress in preventing that effect.
        The groups like the Autism Society, Learning Disabilities
    Association, breast cancer groups and others who are in the
    coalition are here because of that, and it is what is driving
    the public concern that is changing the marketplace and driving
    the States right now. And so we need to make progress on that,
    that is very clear. And I think you had the right idea when you
    started with the examination of what was wrong with TSCA, what
    didn't work and why. And you saw, I think, in the testimony
    that the law never really got off the ground, that the
    procedures and the standards proved to be unworkable, they got
    tied in knots, EPA, trying to regulate asbestos. When they were
    finally done, they were thrown out of court, and the law didn't
    make much other progress. And it is a shame that Mr. Dingell is
    gone because his amendment is one of the clearer parts of TSCA
    that did do something; the PCB ban. And because of all that,
    the fact that TSCA didn't restrict the States turned out to be
    one of its major blessings, one of its only benefits, because
    States have been able to make process in the interim.
        Nevertheless, we are hopeful that the bill can be improved
    based on the testimony of the Senators and our own engagement
    with the Senators' offices and with yourself, being invited
    here. And I want to highlight a few areas, there are more in
    the testimony, for the purposes of helping focus improvement
    and getting to a more balanced bill.
        First is the standard. The core idea of the Chemical Safety
    Improvement Act that the--is that the standard is fixed in the
    unreasonable risk standard. We believe that it is not. The
    attempt to fix it is to apply qualifying language for how it
    should be used in Section 6, but the standard is also used in
    other sections of the bill. And the related issue of the least
    burdensome requirement, while that phrase is excised from the
    bill, a sort of fraternal twin appears that you have heard Jim
    Jones reference that has basically the same effect. And the
    bottom line for us is that the--under the bill, our analysis is
    EPA could still not ban asbestos under this new bill, and that
    is a problem.
        So I think that baggage of TSCA is something to really
    think clearly about, and we need to break with it in this new
    bill. It is otherwise going to weigh down this new bill. The
    clearest--cleanest way to do that would be a new standard, but
    if not, if that can't be done, fixing this standard so that it
    is clearly defined as a health-only standard would go a long
    way to dealing with this problem.
        Another problem that has been mentioned is vulnerable
    populations and aggregate exposure. Maybe aggregate exposure
    hasn't been mentioned yet. These are core concepts to the
    American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations on reform, and
    I think they should be embraced more tightly in the bill. The
    bill mentions them but does not really require them to be dealt
    with as a fundamental part of reform. And I think if you don't
    do that, you will be left with safety determinations that
    simply don't reflect the fact that children, it is just a plain
    medical fact, are more susceptible to these chemicals than
    people in heavily-impacted communities are, and that people are
    exposed to the same chemical from more than one source at a
    time. And so you need to add up those exposures when you are
    figuring out what is happening to them, and the protective
    measures, the risk-management measures, need to reflect that.
        So if we don't do that, we will simply be getting the
    determinations wrong, and they won't really be protecting the
    public, and I think you want to be able to claim otherwise when
    we are done with this exercise.
        I want to highlight a couple of issues where the bill
    actually goes backwards and we think does new harm. The first
    is the issue of frameworks which has been mentioned. The bill
    requires a lot of new frameworks. It delays the start of the
    program for several years. We believe that that sounds too much
    like the old TSCA. We want less red tape put in front of EPA
    taking action, not more. Also States' rights. That has been
    mentioned earlier. The bill infringes on them to a great degree
    in a way that we think goes against the record. I think you
    noticed in your comments earlier that not a lot of States have
    taken the fundamental action, but at least they have made
    progress on chemicals while the Federal Government was tied up
    in red tape. And our fundamental interest in preserving States'
    ability, both the progress they have made and their ability to
    make new progress, really is Mr. Barrow's hunting dog analogy
    that no one expected TSCA to not work out the way that it did,
    and any problems in this new law, whether the funding or
    anything else at implementation, we want that safety valve that
    the States can still take action and can still make progress.
        So I will mention the other provisions that are in my--just
    briefly. It is CBI, I think they need a new balance on CBI,
    deadlines, the funding mechanism, broader authority to require
    testing, but the bottom line position is all of these issues,
    we think, can be solved. Some of them can be solved quite
    simply, but our main message is that they really have to be
    solved for this bill to be balanced.
        So thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Igrejas follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.053

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
        And now I would like to turn to Wendy Wagner, Joe A.
    Worsham Centennial Professor at the University of Texas School
    of Law. Welcome and your statement, you have 5 minutes.
        Ms. Wagner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
    Member Tonko and----
        Mr. Shimkus. And you may want to pull that microphone a
    little bit closer.

                      STATEMENT OF WENDY E. WAGNER

        Ms. Wagner. That is nice. I have an Ethel Merman voice, so
    it is good to need a microphone.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Tonko and the
    members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to testify here
    today.
        My focus is going to be a little bit different than some of
    the other panelists. I am going to focus on the good science
    provisions of Senate Bill 1009.
        I have studied the use of science by regulatory agencies,
    particularly EPA, for over 20 years, written a couple of books,
    dozens of articles, I have also done some empirical analyses.
    And based on this extensive study, when I look at the good
    science provisions in Senate Bill 1009, I see that they are
    just as likely to undermine the scientific rigor of EPA's
    decision making as to enhance it. And, in fact, I think if you
    show the good science provisions to the National Academies,
    they would identify some fundamental problems with the way the
    bill proceeds, particularly with the idea that the scientific
    information available to EPA should be restricted by terms set
    by Congress with regard to what constitutes acceptable science.
        Now, I raise a number of issues in my written testimony. I
    am just going to highlight three here today.
        The first--there are over 40 pages by my count of good
    science provisions in the bill, but I am not sure what the
    underlying problem is that those 40 pages are trying to
    address. There are really serious problems with TSCA and EPA's
    implementation of TSCA, to be sure. I am not aware in the
    literature though of problems with EPA's failure to use the
    best available science in its regulation.
        Second, as I read it, the bill reduces rather than enlarges
    the information available to EPA to regulate using this best
    available science gateway with the three-prong requirements.
    There are a number of features of the best available science.
    Just to take one as an example, according to the best available
    science, all the information used by EPA in its safety
    assessments and safety determinations needs to have peer-
    reviewed data. Now, even with a liberal interpretation of what
    peer-reviewed data is, and there could be a lot of
    disagreements about what that is, even with a liberal
    interpretation, I read that as having the potential to exclude
    a lot of industry submissions over the last 40 years. The
    substantial risk reports under AE, for example, I am not sure
    those would clear just that one barrier in best available
    science. Even the test data provided by the manufacturers over
    the last 30 years, I am not sure that would clear some of the
    best available science requirements. If EPA wants to bring
    these industry submissions up to the standards of best
    available science, it is my reading of the bill that the burden
    would be on EPA. They would need to make sure the industry
    submissions meet all the various requirements.
        More to the point, the problem with TSCA has been the EPA
    doesn't have enough information to assess chemicals. It can't
    regulate chemicals if it doesn't have this information. So
    legislation that actually further restricts the information
    available to EPA to do assessments seems to me to be moving in
    exactly the wrong direction.
        I am also not sure what the scientific pedigree is for this
    best available science provision written in the Senate Bill
    1009. It doesn't align with the National Academy's reports I
    have seen, at least.
        Third, the good science provisions, and this has come up
    before, are loaded with ambiguities. Lawyers, including the
    students I teach, have a term for this. When you have a
    mandatory provision that is very ambiguous, it creates what is
    called an attachment point, because high stakes, litigious
    groups can latch onto those attachment points and hold the
    Agency's feet to the fire in litigation. By my count, the good
    science provisions in Senate Bill 1009 contain dozens of
    attachment points. The administrative literature also reveals
    that when an agency has a statute ladened with all these
    attachment points that invite litigation, not only will be--it
    be embroiled in litigation, but it is likely to seek to
    compromise with the high-stakes, most-litigious groups. It is
    actually not necessarily either because the agency is captured,
    it simply wants to get some rules through the process, so it
    needs to engage in these compromises. One of my worries when I
    look at this is who will these high-stakes litigious groups be.
    I am concerned it won't be the best manufacturers in the United
    States who make the safest and most effective chemicals. The
    manufacturers taking advantage of these attachment points, I am
    concerned, will be the manufacturers that make the least
    effective and most toxic chemicals.
        Now, despite the fact that these good science provisions
    are loaded with attachment points that are likely to lead to
    litigation and delay, as you have heard, except with one
    exception, I think, there are no deadlines at all in the
    statute--I am sorry, in Senate Bill 1009, not the statute. That
    was not a fraudulent slip. The bill also provides absolutely no
    mechanisms for ensuring the transparency of whatever side deals
    in compromises take place.
        In my view, the basic goal of chemical policy should be to
    get safer, more effective chemicals out of our manufacturers.
    The bill does not provide these kinds of incentives.
        If the bill became law as-is, I don't see any possibility
    of a race to the top among the manufacturers in the United
    States who make chemicals. Instead, the bill is ladened with a
    maze of procedural requirements for EPA, with landmines for
    litigation at every turn. I think we can do better.
        Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7628.073

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
        Now I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for the first
    round of--or the round of questionings.
        And my first question I want to direct to Mr. Dooley, Mr.
    Rosenberg and I think Mr. Garfield. And it is based upon the
    question, let me start this, is based upon the question that I
    asked Mr. Jones. And many witnesses have testified before our
    committee on the strengths and successes of existing TSCA
    Section 5 provisions for new chemicals and new uses of existing
    chemicals.
        Are the changes to TSCA Section 5 in the Senate bill needed
    and why? Cal, if you would start.
        Mr. Dooley. ACC, you know, supports the provisions of the
    modifications of Section 5 in CSIA. We recognize that it is
    important, even with the new chemicals, that you do have
    provisions that do allow for EPA to make an affirmative
    determination that the new chemical will likely meet the safety
    standard, and that we accept that it is an obligation upon the
    industry and the manufacturer to provide that information and
    to allow them to make that determination.
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Rosenberg?
        Mr. Rosenberg. EPA--thank you. EPA has asked hundreds of
    manufacturers for data in the new chemical program since its
    inception. Without exception, those data have either been
    provided or the premanufacturer notice was withdrawn. So the
    deficiencies, if you will, in Section 5, in my view, go to
    where you end up if you really want to regulate a new chemical,
    and you end up in Section 6. Section 6 has the least burdensome
    alternative hurdle, which I completely agree with Jim Jones, is
    an unmanageable hurdle for the Agency.
        So the changes that are made in Section 5 in the bill do
    one important thing. They do what we are really looking for,
    which is create a more credible program. And the fact that
    there is an affirmative determination gives, at least most
    people, a level of comfort that things haven't just gone
    through because the deadline expired.
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Garfield?
        Mr. Garfield. We are still doing some analysis on this, but
    we are also comfortable with the more--with the creation of a
    more credible program. The two concerns are ones that have been
    highlighted before; one, making sure that the timeline and
    deadlines that have been set are ones that are actually
    effectuated, and then two, making sure that confidential
    business information is--continues to be protected.
        Mr. Shimkus. Do you three feel that this would--has a
    chance to harm innovation?
        Mr. Dooley. Well, there is always, you know, that potential
    if EPA, you know, didn't take any judicious approach, but I
    would say that with our experience, and is very consistent with
    what Mr. Rosenberg said, is that EPA's current administration
    of the new chemicals act has been pretty effective, in that it
    has resulted in, you know, the U.S. being at the forefront of
    bringing new chemicals on the market that are being used
    safely, that are ensuring that we are at the forefront in
    developing innovations, and that is validated by the number of
    patents that we receive, the disparity in terms of the number
    of new chemicals and new innovations brought into the
    marketplace in the U.S. versus our competitors in the EU.
        And so we also know that, you know, that, you know, that
    there are going to be some provisions, perhaps even under the
    Administrative Act, that can give us a recourse if EPA
    oversteps their bounds, even in the request of some
    information.
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Rosenberg?
        Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you. The innovation is a delicate
    thing, and it depends on what kind of market the chemical is
    going to have, how much volume it will have, as--and how
    innovative it is, as to what cost you can bear in going through
    a regulatory program. Any screening program for chemicals that
    EPA has will put some drag on innovation because some companies
    or some chemicals won't be able to bear the cost, but this is a
    good compromise. This is analogous to what happens in other
    parts of the world. In no part of the world that I am aware of,
    including Europe, does the Agency have to make an affirmative
    finding of safety before a new chemical gets to the
    marketplace. EPA has the strongest power because it is a
    premanufacturing requirement, not a premarketing requirement.
    So nothing--there is no economic value of the chemical yet if
    it hasn't hit the market, whereas in Europe, you can go to the
    market without--by just filing a piece of paper.
        Mr. Shimkus. And speaking to innovation, I would not want
    to leave Mr. Garfield without a chance to respond.
        Mr. Garfield. I also agree it is a reasonable compromise
    that will be impacted perhaps more by EPA's practice. So in
    reality, the way this works, including the deadline, is that
    when you come up against the deadlines, EPA and a company will
    negotiate a suspension of that deadline to ensure that the
    progress continues to be made in resolving the open issues. And
    so in part, a lot of this will depend on whether EPA stays true
    to the deadlines that you have offered or whether they do not.
        Mr. Shimkus. My time has expired. Chair now recognizes Mr.
    Tonko for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We heard from EPA earlier that cost-benefit analysis should
    not play a role in the determination of whether a chemical
    meets the safety standard under a reformed TSCA. The bill
    before us continues to use the unreasonable risk standard that
    has historically implied a cost-benefit analysis. A number of
    stakeholders are on record supporting a safety standard that
    focuses exclusively on risk, not cost-benefit analysis. For
    example, ACC's 2009 principle state, and I quote
    ``consideration of the benefits of chemicals being evaluated,
    the cost of methods to control their risks, and the benefits
    and costs of alternatives, should be part of EPA's risk
    management decision making, but should not be part of its safe
    use determinations.'' In other words, the determination of
    whether a chemical meets the safety standard for a particular
    use should not involve a cost-benefit analysis.
        Mr. Dooley, does ACC still support that principle for TSCA
    reform?
        Mr. Dooley. Yes, we do. If you had--you know, if you really
    look at, you know, our policy is, and if you look at the CSIA,
    is that there is not a requirement to do a cost-benefit
    analysis on the prioritization, nor is there a consideration of
    the cost-benefit analysis in the safety assessment. But when
    you get to the safety determination, when EPA is making a
    decision that for some intended use, that there needs to be a
    restriction, a regulation or perhaps a ban, then we think it is
    appropriate that you do a cost-benefit analysis of that
    specific action by EPA, because you might have an instance
    there where, let us just say it is mercury in a compact
    fluorescent bulb, you know, something that, you know, an
    innovation that is, you know, contributing to significant
    energy savings. That mercury is a critical component of that
    technology. If you had EPA that would choose to ban mercury
    because it is potentially a hazardous exposure, and they didn't
    go through and do a cost-benefit analysis, or are there other
    alternatives that could contribute to the same environmental
    benefits and energy efficiency benefits, it would result in bad
    regulation from our perspective, and bad public policy.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Dr. Denison, do you think that cost-benefit analysis should
    be kept out of the safety standard in a reformed TSCA?
        Mr. Denison. Yes, I do, Mr. Tonko. I think the--I have a
    different reading than Mr. Dooley of what the bill requires
    because I think he stated that the--that cost-benefit analysis
    should come in at the point of the safety determination. I
    think the safety determination needs to be a health-based,
    risk-based determination on the science.
        Now, the factors that Mr. Dooley mentions are appropriate
    to consider in determining how to address a risk for a chemical
    that fails a safety standard, and the bill needs to make that
    demarcation quite clear. That is actually how I read ACC's
    principles back in 2009.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, Mr. Igrejas, does the Safer
    Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition have concerns that the
    unreasonable risk standard in the bill before us will not be a
    pure health standard?
        Mr. Igrejas. Absolutely. We read the bill as not having
    effectively separated out the cost benefit from the risk
    decisions, and also retaining the least burdensome requirement,
    which is related but separate for bans and phase-outs.
        Mr. Tonko. And should any TSCA reform bill this committee
    considers be absolutely clear that cost-benefit analysis is not
    a part of the determination that a chemical meets safety
    standard?
        Mt. Igrejas. We believe it should be.
        Mr. Tonko. S. 1009 also leaves in place the substantial
    evidence standard for judicial review that played a significant
    role in the asbestos decision.
        Ms. Wagner, how common is that heightened standard of
    review in the environmental law context?
        Ms. Wagner. Typically, the Agency is held to an arbitrary
    and capricious standard, so it is very unusual.
        Mr. Tonko. Will that standard of review make it harder for
    EPA to prevail in court when it takes action under TSCA than
    under other environmental statutes?
        Ms. Wagner. It is definitely a higher burden. I think the
    case law is a little murky. Some courts actually don't seem to
    use substantial evidence differently than others, but some do.
    On balance, it is likely to be a higher burden.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. There is a strong public interest in
    improving EPA's ability to take action under TSCA to address
    the serious risks we face from chemical exposures. We have
    better working models for dealing with risks and other
    environmental laws, the pesticides laws, for example. Any TSCA
    reform bill, in my opinion, considered by this committee should
    remove the known obstacles to TSCA implementation, such as the
    cost-benefit analysis component of the safety standard, and
    this heightened standard of judicial review.
        And with that, I believe my time is up and I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time.
        The Chair now recognizes, I believe, Mr. Green from Texas
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My first series of questions I want to ask, and they are
    just yes or no, for all witnesses. Briefly, do you believe that
    Lautenberg-Vitter is an improvement over current law or is
    status quo preferable?
        Mr. Dooley?
        Mr. Dooley. Yes.
        Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, it is an improvement.
        Mr. Denison. Mr. Green, in some respects yes, in other
    respects no.
        Mr. Green. OK. Mr. Garfield?
        Mr. Garfield. My answer is the same. In some respects yes,
    in other respects no, but in the respects where it is no, it
    can be improved.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Igrejas?
        Mr. Igrejas. I say no.
        Ms. Wagner. With respect to the good science provisions,
    no.
        Mr. Green. OK. Well, for all the witnesses, in your
    opinion, are the issues raised in today's hearings on
    Lautenberg-Vitter issues that can be improved through
    clarification, or are they issues that fundamentally cannot be
    corrected? Why don't I ask the last four since you all are the
    ones that said it wasn't an improvement?
        Mr. Denison. Congressman, I do believe the problems can be
    corrected, and that is based on a number of years of dialogue
    with other stakeholders, including the two gentlemen to my
    right here. So I think there are solutions at hand if we can
    get down to the hard work of negotiating this through and
    finding the right balance.
        Mr. Green. OK. I guess the reason I asked that to start
    with is that, you know, we know the law from 1976 is old and we
    need to update it, but believe me, in a Republican Congress, we
    are not going to get to where a lot of folks would want to be,
    but I just want to make sure we move that ball down the field,
    and that includes passing it through the Senate, because I
    represent a very urban district in East Harris County that has
    chemical plants refineries, and people who live along those
    fence lines. And so that is why I would like to improve the law
    to the best we can get politically through the House and the
    Senate.
        Mr. Dooley, you--can you explain the--and expand on ACC's
    views on the EPA's authority to require testing of chemicals?
    Is it--in particular, does ACC support changes to the EPA's
    current authority to test existing chemicals, and what changes
    and why?
        Mr. Dooley. Yes, we do support, and that is what I think
    was one of the, you know, the fundamental, you know, positives
    about this legislation is, for the first time, those, you know,
    60,000 or however many grandfathered chemicals will be subject
    to prioritization and to a safety assessment. And we support
    those provisions, and--as well as provisions that would give
    the ability for EPA under new chemicals to have--facilitate
    their ability to access the data that they need to make a
    determination whether or not those chemicals do meet the new
    safety standard.
        Mr. Green. OK. And I know the ACC's position on the safety
    standard in both current TSCA and in a modernized TSCA. Is the
    safety standard in Lautenberg-Vitter identical to the current
    standard in TSCA?
        Mr. Dooley. No, it is significantly different in that in
    the new CSIA--rather, the CSIA----
        Mr. Green. Um-hum.
        Mr. Dooley [continuing]. Is that the safety standard of an
    unreasonable risk to human health and the environment from the
    exposure to its intended use is the standard there. It does not
    in any way require a cost-benefit analysis as you do under
    existing law. So it will make a, you know, significant--it is a
    significant difference from the existing standard.
        Mr. Green. And EPA and other areas in environment, do they
    also conduct cost-benefit analyses?
        Mr. Dooley. I am not----
        Mr. Green. OK.
        Mr. Dooley [continuing]. Sure if I--I need to do a little
    more research on that one.
        Mr. Green. And one of the issues is that the Lautenberg-
    Vitter would--has an addition of deadlines compared to TSCA. Is
    that a benefit as compared to--a benefit from the additional
    deadlines?
        Mr. Dooley. Well, you--the issue of deadlines has been a
    subject of a lot of conversation with Administrator Jones that
    was here today. You know, from an ACC perspective, you know, we
    have no objection to deadlines, but we think the deadlines need
    to be reasonable. And I thought it was interesting when
    Administrator Jones was making his statement today, he said he
    needed deadlines. But the people that we need the information
    on, what is the appropriate deadlines, is the EPA. You know, we
    need the information from them in terms of how many chemicals
    do you think is appropriate of the 60,000 that you want to have
    go through a prioritization and safety assessment, and perhaps
    a safety determination. How many of those can you do, and how
    many FTE's do you need to do, and what is a reasonable time
    frame to do those.
        I think what is difficult for members of Congress in
    constructing this legislation is to develop arbitrary deadlines
    that you would think EPA can meet. What the legislation
    attempts to do is put the onus and the burden on EPA to set
    deadlines that they are compelled to meet, which would then be
    informed upon the capacity and the expertise that they have to
    carry out the provisions of CSIA.
        Mr. Green. OK. Mr. Denison, your testimony discussed the
    process for evaluating new chemicals. How would EPA determine
    if a chemical is likely safe under this legislation?
        Mr. Denison. Congressman, the details of that are left to
    EPA, I think, not specified in the legislation in any detail,
    but I think the key here is that there is first the affirmative
    requirement that evidence of safety be available on a chemical
    in order for that chemical to be sold. And second, that the bar
    is actually intentionally, I think, lower than it is for a
    chemical that is already on the market. So the difference
    between likely meets the safety standard and meets the safety
    standard reflects the fact that that chemical is in an early
    stage of development, it has not yet been on the market, and,
    therefore, the amount of information and the amount of ability
    to demonstrate definitively its safety is appropriately less.
    But the key difference from current law is, as Mr. Jones
    stated, changing from a passive system where unless EPA finds a
    problem, that chemical simply can come onto the market, to one
    that requires EPA to affirmatively find some evidence of safety
    as a condition for market entry, and that is a key change.
        Mr. Green. How does giving EPA the authority to issue
    orders for testing requirements as found in Lautenberg-Vitter
    an improvement over the present law?
        Mr. Denison. Congressman, the length of time that EPA has
    to take to get a rule through to require testing averages about
    5 years. An order could be issued within a few months. We think
    that is a significant improvement. The only problem I would
    flag here is that, while the bill makes it easier for EPA to
    get information, it limits the points in time in the process
    when it could do so. So, for example, if EPA has a new chemical
    or a chemical that it is trying to prioritize, and it finds it
    doesn't have enough data, the bill actually strips the current
    authority EPA would have to require testing at that stage in
    the process. We think that is a problem.
        So there are some positive aspects of the bill in this
    regard; order authority and the removal of the requirement to
    first show risk, but there is also some restrictions on EPA's
    current authority to actually require testing.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I know you have been very kind
    and--but obviously we need to deal with that as a committee
    when we--to address that. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. That is because I have great affection for my
    colleague from Texas.
        So now I would like to recognize my colleague from New
    Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for as much time as he wants to consume.
    How about that?
        Mr. Pallone. Well, I won't use too much, I promise, but
    thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased the committee has
    convened this hearing, and I certainly appreciate the efforts
    of my late Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to
    bring both sides together on this critical issue.
        I have met with stakeholders in the environmental community
    and in the chemical industry, and we can all agree that the
    status quo is not working. The GAO has included the current
    TSCA statute in its high-risk series over the last several
    years, citing EPA's lack of authority to limit exposure to
    chemicals that may pose substantial health risks. And I believe
    there are many other issues that all stakeholders can agree
    upon, including striking the language that compels the EPA to
    pursue the least burdensome requirement that is so strict, it
    prevented EPA from regulating asbestos.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I hope to work with you and our
    colleagues to craft a bipartisan bill. And I just wanted to ask
    two questions, if I could.
        First is posed to Mr. Denison, and that is, you state in
    your testimony that, and I quote, ``by EPA merely designating a
    chemical as high or low priority, all States would be precluded
    from imposing a new requirement on the chemical.''
        So my question is, do you feel this preemption mechanism is
    triggered too early in the process, and if so, what type of
    timeline, if any, do you consider practical?
        Mr. Denison. I do, Congressman. I think the extent to which
    the law will restrict States' ability to act needs to be placed
    at the end of the process of EPA's evaluation and determination
    of the safety of a chemical, and where necessary, the
    promulgation of a rule that applies the appropriate
    restrictions. If that preemption kicks in earlier in the
    process, as it does for new requirements under the bill, the
    concern I have is that States would not be able to act, and
    then the incentives for dragging out the length of time it
    would take to get from simply EPA prioritizing a chemical to
    that final action, the incentives would be to drag that out as
    long as possible.
        So we need a system that provides incentives for efficient
    and effective action, and I worry that provision in particular
    would run counter to that.
        Mr. Pallone. Do you want to talk about a time--a different
    timeline any more than you have, or----
        Mr. Denison. Yes. I think the--those triggers for
    preemption need to occur at the final action of the Agency. If
    it finds a chemical meets a safety standard, that would be the
    final action. If it finds a chemical doesn't meet the safety
    standard, the final action would be the promulgation of that
    rule that imposes the appropriate risk management, and that
    should be the trigger for preemption.
        Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you.
        And then my second question, Mr. Chairman, is to Mr.
    Igrejas. I hope I am pronouncing it.
        As we work to reform TSCA, I believe one of the most
    important issues is protecting vulnerable populations, such as
    infants and those living near chemical facilities. In New
    Jersey, as you know, we have a combination of both a large
    number of chemical facilities and a high population density. So
    the consequences of insufficient protection are dire. And so I
    wanted to ask you, you mentioned in your testimony that you
    think, and I quote, ``intent and language do not match up
    regarding protecting these populations.'' So what do you
    suggest to ensure the bill works to protect vulnerable
    populations such as children and those living near the chemical
    facilities?
        Mr. Igrejas. Sure. Thank you very much. I think vulnerable
    populations could be clearly defined first, a definition of
    what it includes; children, pregnant women, heavily-exposed
    individuals in communities, and then they should be explicitly
    required to be included in the safety determination and
    protected by any risk-management measures. That would play the
    issue out, so to speak, so that we know the decisions that are
    made, the measures that are taken are protecting the vulnerable
    populations.
        Mr. Pallone. OK, but nothing more in terms of specifics at
    this point, other than the definition or how----
        Mr. Igrejas. The definition and clear language that they
    are included in not just the assessment phase, which is in the
    bill now, but in the determinations and risk-management
    measures.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. All right, that is it, Mr. Chairman. I
    didn't use my 5 minutes. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. Well, I thank my colleague. And I was going to
    ask, because it was very interesting, I appreciate you all
    being here. Maybe we have gone around, but I think we have
    fleshed out as much as we can right now, and I am sure we will
    see some of you through our offices as we continue this
    process.
        Just some final comments. It is really hard for me to
    believe that the product in the Senate bill is not better than
    the current law. I mean on the face of it, it--a bill that is--
    a law that is 37 years old and has not been changed, and has
    proven to be not effective, something has to be better than
    nothing. I think that is where there is some commonality in
    moving forward.
        The second thing is, this risk-based issue, there is--I
    guess my--there is--Cal brought up a good issue about the
    compact fluorescent bulbs, and what is the environmental
    benefit or societal benefit of maybe a hazardous chemical that
    is used in a product that benefits mankind. I am not a climate
    guy here, everybody knows that, but if you are, you like
    compact fluorescent bulbs, and there is a--some people would
    believe there is a great return on--in fact, we had debated
    that in our Cap and Trade Bill on that very same issue.
        So there are issues there. Preemption is going to be a
    contentious issue, and the--and--but I would like people to
    start talking to us about deadlines because it seems like,
    through the three panels, well, at least the second two,
    deadlines was a consistent theme. And I am--Ms. Wagner, I think
    your testimony was very intriguing, and I think we are going to
    look further into your comments and try to flesh out some of
    that stuff.
        I have a unanimous consent request that all members of the
    subcommittee have 5 days to submit an opening statement for the
    record. So ordered. I would like to ask unanimous consent to
    insert letters into the record from the California EPA, Breast
    Cancer Fund, National Conference of State Legislatures, two
    from the Environmental Working Group, a letter from 35 Senators
    and lawyers, from 25 medical professionals, and remind--without
    objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Shimkus. And I would like to remind subcommittee
    members they have 10 days to submit questions for the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
        Thank you. With that, we want to thank you for your
    testimony. Please keep working with us. I think there is some
    great interest to try to move forward, and hopefully throughout
    this process we can get through the finish line.
        And with that, I will call this hearing adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]