[Senate Hearing 114-225]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-225
BUSINESS MEETING
=======================================================================
MEETING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
APRIL 28-29, 2015
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
S. Hrg. 114-225
BUSINESS MEETING
=======================================================================
MEETING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 28-29, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-690 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 28-29, 2015
OPENING STATEMENTS
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 6
Booker, Hon. Cory A., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey,
prepared statement on S. 697................................... 227
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland, prepared statement on:
S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act................................................ 290
S. 544, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015................ 310
S. 653, the Water Resources Research Amendments Act of 2015.. 320
LEGISLATION
Text of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 697
offered by Senator Udall....................................... 33
Text of the amendment to S. 697 offered by Senator Gillibrand.... 214
Text of the amendment No. 1 to S. 697 offered by Senators Boxer,
Sanders, and Markey............................................ 222
Text of the amendment No. 1 to S. 697 offered by Senator Markey.. 231
Text of the amendment No. 2 to S. 697 offered by Senator Markey.. 237
Text of the amendment No. 3 to S. 697 offered by Senators Boxer
and Carper..................................................... 242
Summary, amendment No. 5 to S. 697 offered by Senators Boxer,
Markey, and Sanders............................................ 257
Text of the amendment No. 5 to S. 697 offered by Senators Boxer,
Markey, and Sanders............................................ 258
Text of S. 544, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015...........295-297
Text of the amendment No. 1 to S. 544 offered by Senators Markey
and Boxer...................................................... 301
Text of the amendment No. 2 to S. 544 offered by Senators Markey
and Boxer...................................................... 304
Text of the amendment No. 2 to S. 544 offered by Senators Boxer
and Markey..................................................... 307
Text of S. 653, the Water Resources Research Amendments Act of
2015..........................................................314-318
Text of Committee Resolutions.................................... 324
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters:
International Society for Environmental Epidemiology........359-360
Nanominerals Corp. et al....................................361-368
American Association for Justice............................369-370
American Statistical Association............................372-373
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards............................ 374
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology...375-376
Allergy & Asthma Network et al..............................377-378
American Association for the Advancement of Science.........379-380
Union of Concerned Scientists...............................381-382
American Association for the Advancement of Science.........386-387
BlueGreen Alliance et al....................................388-389
Nomination Reference and Report, Mark Scarano to be Federal
Cochairperson of the Northern Border Regional Commission....... 358
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget, Statement of Administration Policy..................... 371
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, H.R. 1030, the Secret
Science Reform Act of 2015..................................... 383
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 28-WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Vitter, Barrasso, Boozman,
Fischer, Crapo, Wicker, Sullivan, Capito, Rounds, Carper,
Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Sanders, Markey, and Booker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Our meeting will come to order. We already
have a pretty good crowd here. This is the first mark-up of the
EPW committee to order.
We have a number of items, many of which are bipartisan,
which we can report out of the committee this morning. Senator
Barrasso's bill, S. 544, ensuring data on which EPA bases its
regulations are available to the public sector, and I think we
may get a visitor on that from Representative Lamar Smith, who
had the bill over in the House. He should be probably coming
here for this.
We have Senator Wicker's bill, S. 611, to reauthorize the
Safe Drinking Water Act's technical assistance and training
provision to assist small and rural public water systems. This
is something that is near and dear to me, because Mississippi
isn't that much different from Oklahoma, and that need is
there. This is legislation that the committee reported last
Congress by voice vote.
Senator Cardin's and Senator Boozman's bill to reauthorize
Water Resources Research Act grants. We have a few naming
bills, the nomination of Mark Scarano to be Federal co-chairman
of the Northern Border Regional Commission. And finally GSA
resolutions, all of which have already been considered and
passed out of the T&I Committee over in the House.
One of the principal items on the agenda is S. 679, the
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Security for the 21st Century Act.
It is authored by Senators Vitter and Udall. This is something
which has been in the works for a long time, and I have often
said this is really kind of the legacy of Frank Lautenberg.
This legislation is now bipartisan. Co-sponsors are equal in
number of Democrats and Republicans. It has bipartisan support
within this committee.
In fact, due to the consistent work of Senators Vitter and
Udall, we now have reached a new amendment or an underlying
bill with the support of Senators Whitehouse, Booker, and
Merkley. I genuinely appreciate their work over the last number
of weeks to reach this compromise.
For years, Senator Lautenberg worked to update the 1976
law, introducing bills each Congress. He and I met in my office
back in 2012, and it was his idea that we get people together,
the stakeholders together, and talk about what should be a part
of legislation. Everyone agreed we needed to do something, not
exactly what it was. So we started working on it at that time.
Major environmental laws do not get passed or updated without
bipartisan support. And certainly we have that.
TSCA is long overdue. As Dr. McCabe, the chief medical
officer of the March of Dimes, testified at our legislative
hearing just a couple of weeks ago here, ``The current Federal
framework for the regulation of toxic substances is badly
antiquated. The legislation before this committee today,''
referring to this legislation, ``developed by Senators Tom
Udall and David Vitter, and co-sponsored by numerous other
Senators, including the Chairman, represents a critical step
forward toward establishing a system of chemical regulation
that will be protective of maternal and child health.''
Dr. Richard Denison of Environmental Defense Fund
testified, ``The Environmental Defense Fund supports the
Lautenberg Act as a solid compromise that fixes the biggest
problems in the current law, is health protective and has the
strong bipartisan support necessary to become law.''
Finally, Dr. Lynn Goldman, a former EPA assistant
administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances during the Clinton administration, a former
California regulator, and perhaps most importantly, a
pediatrician, testified the public health standard in this bill
is ``an immense improvement over current law.'' She also
identified that the bill orders strong chemical testing,
directs that EPA certify safety of new chemicals, and makes
more chemical information public.
This is a bill which has the support of the regulated
community, environmental community, many in the medical
community, and bipartisan support in the Senate. We should
report it to the full Senate so we can consider the bill.
Senator Boxer.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Colleagues, this is the Environment Committee, not the
board room of the chemical companies. That is why I am pleased
with the 179-page Vitter amendment as a substitute for S. 697.
We are witnessing the death of that original bill, which
according to a prize winning reporter, was written on the
computer of the American Chemistry Council. I ask unanimous
consent to place in the record that article.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
[The referenced article follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. That bill is gone, and I give my deepest
thanks to the many public health organizations, environmental
organizations like the Environmental Working Group, NRDC, Safer
Chemicals, the Breast Cancer Fund, the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization, nurses, physicians, the media and
individuals like Deirdre Imus, Linda Reinstein and Trevor
Schaefer. Those individuals and organizations put S. 697, the
original bill, front and center and, despite its magnificent
name, named after one of my most dearly beloved colleagues,
they saw it for what it was. I ask unanimous consent to place
in the record a Chronicle editorial that was written after they
met with the breast cancer people.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. The old bill had, as Senator Whitehouse
called it, a death zone. The death zone is the period when
States cannot act to address cancer-causing chemicals. Thanks
to all of you who were so strong, and particularly those who
stood by my side at several press conferences, we have seen
great improvements to this bill.
So now in the Vitter amendment, we see fixes to preemption
of State air and water laws, co-enforcement of chemical
restrictions by States, removal of a harmful provision that
would have undermined the EPA's ability to restrict imports of
dangerous chemicals from foreign countries.
When several colleagues offered to negotiate the changes, I
said yes. Senators Whitehouse, Merkley and Booker, they worked
very hard, very hard to improve the bill. I know, because I
spoke to them almost every day this past week. They came
through on those fixes that I mentioned, and I thank Senators
Vitter and Udall for agreeing to them.
With the Vitter amendment, we are still left with a death
zone of at least 5 years. What could happen during that time?
New scientific evidence could show that a chemical causes
cancer, but the States can't act. During the 5-year period,
there is a list of conditions that easily could be used to deny
a waiver and force the States to go to court.
The House bill, the House bill on TSCA, has no preemption
provision. A chemical actually has to be regulated before there
is preemption. That is the way it should be, and we have a
chance to make the important fix with the Gillibrand amendment.
I hope we will. We all talk about the rights of our States to
act to protect their people. Let's prove that we mean it when
we say States' rights, and support Senator Gillibrand. Let's
not have Big Brother tell the States they have no right to act
to protect their citizens.
You know when our States act, we all benefit. When
Minnesota took first steps to ban BPA in baby bottles, and the
State of Washington took the lead on restricting the use of
brain-toxic lead in jewelry, and my home State spearheaded the
effort to restrict the use of cancer-causing formaldehyde in
wood products, that benefited the entire Nation, the entire
Nation.
I also don't understand why in the new Vitter substitute
there is not even a mention of asbestos, the most dangerous
substance. It takes 10,000 lives a year; no mention of it in
the substitute.
The new Vitter amendment left out action also on cancer
clusters and chemical spills in drinking water, which is so
important to West Virginia. We have amendments to address that.
There are still many parts of this bill that need fixing, and I
urge my colleagues to keep working to make this bill better.
And I ask unanimous consent to place in the record letters from
organizations that oppose final passage of the Vitter
substitute unless we pass strong perfecting amendments.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
[The referenced letters were not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. Those would include Safer Chemicals, Healthy
Families Coalition, which represents 450 environmental, labor,
and health groups; the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization;
the AFL-CIO; Environmental Working Group, the Breast Cancer
Fund, and the Center for Environmental Health. I really look
forward to making this chemical safety bill better and better.
But if we can't support these perfecting amendments today, I
intent to vote no on final passage.
I thank you so much for all your work on this.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
We will be dealing with quorums. We need 11 to report the
legislation, when we get to that point, and 7 people here for
the GSA Resolutions amendments I mentioned in my opening
statement.
To begin, we will call up the Vitter substitute, the
Vitter-Udall substitute amendment. That will be the underlying
bill, and I recognize Senator Vitter for an explanation. Over
the weekend, they reached an agreement, as was called to our
attention by myself and by Senator Boxer, on the substitute
amendment, which I think is supported by a lot of people on
this committee.
Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
convening today's business meeting and for bringing up this new
version of S. 697. This work reflects the ongoing strong
bipartisan effort between Senator Udall and myself and
involving so many others. This bill is a marked improvement
over current law. It does represent significant positive
compromise. It is the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for
the 21st Century Act, aptly named.
Mr. Chairman, after this committee held our hearing on the
legislation in March, Senator Udall and I took the concerns
presented by many colleagues and stakeholders and set out to
make the bill even stronger. That is what we have before us
today. I am pleased to have worked, in particular, with
Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, and Booker to produce this
compromise. I welcome their input and their support. I also
want to thank Senator Carper for his relentless work on this
issue.
Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly note some of the
improvements in this bill. First, the amendment creates a
compromise on one of, if not the most, controversial issue, and
that is high priority preemption. Not only did the bill as
originally introduced remove the preemptive effect of low
priority decisions, but this amendment today goes farther to
balance the need for maintaining business certainty while
allowing States to play an important role in protecting public
health and the environment.
No. 2, Mr. Chairman, this bill allows for State co-
enforcement of regulations that are consistent with current
TSCA. No. 3, it requires that for the purposes of TSCA
submissions to the EPA, industry look at available alternatives
to animal testing. And No. 4, this bill provides clarification
that State clean air and water laws are not preempted by the
legislation, which was never our intent.
Many of these changes reflect requests made by colleagues.
This compromise represents real improvement that my side of the
aisle will also appreciate, including allowing for a greater
number of chemicals to move through the system at the request
of the regulated community, clarifying some necessary
protections of confidential business information and clarifying
EPA's process around articles.
Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership, your work in getting us to this very significant
day, marking up and passing out of committee a major
improvement to current law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Senator Udall follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. I applaud both you and Senator Udall for
your hard work. It has been very time consuming. You have had a
lot of staff keeping busy late at night. We are finally here.
I am going to ask for members to seek recognition on each
amendment that a member may want to call up. We have a long
list of possible amendments. We have counsel at the witness
table to answer questions concerning the legislation and
amendments from committee members. At the conclusion of the
members' statements and questions, we will vote on each
amendment until finally proceeding to the vote on the bill.
Does any Senator seek recognition? Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and
Ranking Member. I appreciate the tireless work of our
colleagues on this bill to craft a bill that is worthy of Frank
Lautenberg's legacy and name. A special thanks to Senators
Udall and Vitter for coming together with our colleagues,
Senators Whitehouse, Merkley and Booker, to begin to strengthen
this bill. I believe that everyone here shares the desire to
fix our broken toxic substance control system and keep our
families and children safe.
A remaining issue that needs to be fixed about this bill,
and my amendment that I would call up would address this
directly, is the right of individual States to do what they
believe is right for their citizens. As currently written, the
bill would tie the hands of Governors and State legislators to
develop their own safety standards, even when the EPA hasn't
yet decided whether a chemical is safe or not. Just thinking
about that for a moment, States that are ready, willing and
able to protect their families will be forced to sit on the
sidelines and wait for EPA to study an issue.
What is more important, the EPA can take years to do its
full analysis. And while I do very much appreciate what my
colleagues have done to shorten this to 5 years, I still
believe that it is only right to allow my State to make its own
regulations in the absence of a Federal decision.
Therefore, my amendment very simply would preserve States'
rights. It would preserve the right of the individual State to
act on the best interest of its people. It would let States
make their own decisions about toxic substances while they wait
for the EPA.
In our 50 States, we have 50 different perspectives on what
and when a chemical is considered dangerous and whether it
should be curtailed. But I think we can all agree that no State
should be prevented from acting in the best interest of its
people. No State should be barred from banning a chemical it
considers to be dangerous, simply because EPA is taking time to
review the substance.
My proposal is taken straight out of the House draft of the
Toxic Substance Control Act, which was recommended by Chairman
Shimkus. It would allow State law to be preempted only after
the EPA has finished its studies and has determined that a
chemical is unsafe.
I want to give you just one example about why this is so
important. The flame retardant TRIS is found in many child care
products, like bedding and car seat padding. This chemical is
classified by the Consumer Product Safety Commission as a
probable human carcinogen. And young children can ingest it at
dangerous levels, because they tend to put their hands in their
mouths.
In 2011, New York was the first State to ban this chemical
in children's products. Since then, three other States have
followed suit. But the EPA has yet to make its own
determination on the chemical.
If this bill was law in 2011, it would have prohibited any
of the individual States from taking any action to limit
manufacturing, processing, distribution or use of this
carcinogen, because they would have had to wait for EPA to make
its final assessment. Under this bill, States would be
prohibited from doing anything to protect their citizens for 5
years while the EPA slowly studies the issue.
I am all for the EPA being careful and thorough with its
research. This country benefits greatly from their work. But I
can't support a bill that prohibits States from acting on their
own to protect children from chemicals. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment to preserve the rights of individual
States to make those decisions.
[The text of the amendment offered by Senator Gillibrand
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand, for
clarification. This is Gillibrand No. 1 amendment that you are
referring to. It appears to me that the amendment would be
harmful to the bipartisan compromise, but I recognize Senator
Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am going to urge a no
vote on this well intended amendment. This would alter the
fundamental compromise in this bill. That compromise is to give
EPA significant new authority, but also to say when they act
and when they take up a chemical, we are going to have one
rulebook and not 50 different rulebooks that industry has to
follow.
So this would alter that fundamental compromise. I think it
could also create a rush for States to get to hasty decisions
before a Federal decision and potentially do poor work. Now,
EPA doesn't have an unlimited amount of time in any of this.
There is significant room for States to take action. But this
would alter the important compromise in the bill.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
I appreciate the views of my colleague, Senator Vitter. But
I don't see how this amendment undermines a thing. As a matter
of fact, Senators Whitehouse, Merkley and Booker made some
slight improvements, in my view. They think more, but that is a
disagreement, on preemption. So the fact is, your new
substitute does in fact make changes on preemption.
All Senator Gillibrand is saying is this. Let the States do
what they do best, which is protect their people until the EPA
has completed their work on a chemical. Otherwise, you have
this horrific death zone in there. That means nobody can do
anything about a chemical for a period of more than 5 years.
And as she has said, she took her amendment directly from a
Republican in the House, Chairman Shimkus, who said the States
should be able to act.
So frankly, I know this vote is going to be taken. But
anyone who votes no, I would ask them, before they do it, to
think about all the speeches they gave about States' rights.
This is a States' rights matter. And I think when the States
want to protect their folks, they should have a chance to do
so.
So I want to thank my colleague and hope that we will pass
this. If we pass this, this has taken a giant step forward.
Senator Inhofe. Do others wish to be heard? Senator
Sanders.
Senator Sanders. I find it awkward to be speaking here in
the position of being the most conservative member of this
committee.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sanders. And I do not usually have very nice things
to say about Republicans in the House.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sanders. But apparently this time, for whatever
reason, they did the right thing and they were consistent with
their ideology.
We have a system of federalism, which actually is a very
interesting and well thought out theory of government by our
founders. And they say we have different States who do things
differently. But if the State of Nevada or the State of
Oklahoma does something really good, other States learn from
it. If a State does something bad, we learn from that.
So the concept of telling States that they cannot go
forward I think is not what conservatives should be supporting.
What governments do closest to home is something that I believe
makes a lot of sense. The State of Vermont has been a leader on
these issues, and I want to see the State of Vermont continue
to be a leader, that other States can learn from Vermont, and
Vermont can learn from California and so forth and so on. So I
think when we have the very conservative U.S. House of
Representatives putting a position in there, as I understand
it, what Senator Gillibrand has done, it is simply word for
word, is that right, Senator?
Senator Gillibrand. Yes.
Senator Sanders. Taken that language, I would hope that we
could all support that proposition. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Others who want to be heard? Yes, Senator
Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Chairman, the issue that I was most
engaged with in these conversations was the question of
preemption generally and specifically, the question of the so
called death zone between the initial announcement of EPA
interest in regulating and the ultimate EPA rule. Indeed, I
coined the term death zone.
As those who were in the negotiations will know, that was a
really important issue to me. My belief is that the Vitter
amendment gets rid of the death zone. I know that this was an
agreement late reached, and colleagues are going to need to
take some time to review it themselves. But my view of this is
that the restriction on States in regulating during that period
first has been narrowed, and second, it has been limited to the
principles that exist first, if you look at the three
exemptions, first, in the Commerce Clause of the United States
Constitution. Second, in the Supremacy Clause of the United
States Constitution. And third, in the Due Process Clause of
the Constitution as it pertains to administrative agency
action.
So those are baselines that we are never going to go
beyond. I think we reached a fair compromise. I intend to vote
for Senator Gillibrand's amendment because I think it moves us
in the right direction. But I want to make sure people are
clear that in the view of the person who coined the phrase
death zone, the death zone is gone as a result of this. And the
regulatory restrictions that remain are those that are
consistent with the baseline principles of the United States
Constitution in those three amendments, one, two and three in
the list in the new statute.
Senator Inhofe. Others who wish to be heard? Yes, sir,
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will echo Senator
Whitehouse's comments.
But I also support this amendment. Here is why. We have a
compromise strategy in the bill. But it is much more complex
than simply capturing the language from the House side. And I
wanted to clarify that I would disagree with our chairman in
terms of the 50 different rulebooks. Because essentially, if
one State acts on a chemical like fire retardants in our
carpets that put poisonous, cancer causing chemicals into our
children when they are just babies crawling on the rug, it
actually creates an incentive for the Federal Government to go
ahead and act. We have seen a Federal Government that has been
paralyzed over acting on these toxic chemicals. So when one
State acts, it strengthens the incentive and puts everybody on
the same wavelength, yes, let's address this nationally, so we
get that one common rulebook, rather than ending up with 50
different ones. By the way, very few States have acted on very
few chemicals over the last four decades. So we have had
neither a really functioning Federal system or a functioning
State system.
But to the degree that they act, as Senator Gillibrand put
out, they are addressing core health and safety issue. It works
nicely in terms of incentivizing the Federal Government under
this structure to be attentive and to be prompt in addressing
substances of significant risk. That is why I will support the
Gillibrand amendment.
Senator Inhofe. Are there others who wish to be heard?
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Without question, tremendous progress has been made. But
the Gillibrand amendment goes right to the heart of the role
whish the States have played over these many years. Twelve
States have acted to regulate BPA. Seven States have regulated
cadmium. Thirty States have regulated mercury. Twelve States
have regulated flame retardants.
What Senator Gillibrand's amendment does is to retain the
authority--to ensure that the States are there as they have
historically been. For example, in Massachusetts, the
scientists from MIT and Harvard can help the State of
Massachusetts to determine whether or not a particular chemical
is something which is too dangerous to be on the market. And
without question, and I think history makes this very clear,
when the States act, it does tend to have the impact of
changing the way in which the entire country has a relationship
with one of the chemicals that are being dealt with.
So I think that we should embrace the role that the State
scientists have played over the years. I think it is a
complementary but very important role. I think that the
Gillibrand amendment acts to retain that role in its historic
place. And I think it is very important for us to recognize
that today in a vote on this amendment.
I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Senator Inhofe. Do others want to be heard?
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. Senator
Whitehouse, who coined the phrase, death zone, it is very
reassuring to hear you say you think it is gone. I think that
will be the subject of great debate as we move forward. I hope
you are right. And I can't tell you how much I hope you are
right.
The fact is, my attorney general says there are major
problems with, he calls it premature preemption of State
authority, combined with unworkable conditions for a waiver of
this preemption. So I am going to ask unanimous consent to put
into the record my attorney general's view of the compromise.
Again, I am very pleased that it looks like, I think, all of us
on our side, I am not sure, will vote for the Gillibrand
amendment. I just am prayerful that we will get some help on
the other side from the people who say they are for States'
rights.
Senator Inhofe. Do others want to be heard?
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, three points. First
of all, it is a very conservative principle, because it is in
the Constitution that things that are fundamentally about
interstate commerce can be governed at the Federal level.
Again, that is straight from the Constitution. There is not
much more than is innately interstate commerce, in fact, it is
international commerce, than what we are talking about, which
are in products made and distributed around the country and
around the world.
Second, because of this, a very similar approach was struck
by Senator Feinstein in a bill regarding some cosmetic products
reviewed by FDA, an extremely analogous approach in that bill.
So this is used and adopted all the time.
Third, with regard to comments about a House bill, that
House bill is a much, much narrower measure, not a broad TSCA
reform measure. So that is really comparing apples and
orangutans.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
If there are no further statements or questions on the
amendment, is there a motion to adopt the Gillibrand amendment?
Senator Whitehouse. So moved.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a second?
Senator Boxer. Second.
Senator Inhofe. All in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Senator Inhofe. Opposed, no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Senator Boxer. I ask for a recorded vote.
Senator Inhofe. A recorded vote is in order. The Clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
Senator Booker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
Senator Boozman. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper.
Senator Carper. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Crapo. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer.
Senator Fischer. No.
The Clerk. Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Aye.
The Clerk. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. No.
The Clerk. Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Aye.
The Clerk. Senator Sessions.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Senator Sullivan.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. No.
The Clerk. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
Senator Wicker. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 8, the nays are 12.
Senator Inhofe. The amendment has failed.
Senator Boxer. Can I offer an amendment or do you want me
to defer? Is it all right if I offer my amendment?
Senator Inhofe. Yes, of course.
Senator Boxer. All right. I would call up Boxer-Sanders-
Markey No. 1. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gillibrand
be added as a co-sponsor.
Senator Inhofe. First of all, let me clarify, the statement
I should have made was that we were going to further
amendments. So that particular amendment failed. You are
recognized for what amendment?
Senator Boxer. I ask to call up Boxer-Sanders-Markey No. 1
and ask unanimous consent that Senator Gillibrand be added as a
co-sponsor.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection. Please proceed.
Senator Boxer. This amendment is named after Alan
Reinstein, who sadly lost his life to mesothelioma. His widow,
Linda Reinstein, who is the co-founder of the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization, is here with us today. Linda, I would
ask you to stand.
Tragically, Linda should be celebrating her 30th wedding
anniversary with her husband, Alan. But instead, she is
clutching his burial flag.
Asbestos kills 10,000 people a year. As Linda reminds us,
``For every life lost from an asbestos-caused disease, a
shattered family is left behind.'' I have met her daughter, and
I know that that is right.
Our amendment would require expedited action on all forms
of asbestos. EPA would have to complete a safety assessment and
determination within 2 years and promulgate a final rule within
3 years. The Vitter-Udall bill, as introduced, and the Vitter
substitute amendment, does not even mention the word asbestos.
And experts say that regulation of asbestos under the Udall-
Vitter bill will never happen.
Asbestos, a lethal substance, is still legal in the U.S.,
even though it has been banned in most developed nations. There
is absolutely no reason to delay action any further. This
amendment will enable the EPA to once and for all ban asbestos.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
[The text of Boxer-Sanders-Markey Amendment No. 1 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Others who wish to be heard?
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman, I am opposing the amendment.
The bill does not mention the word asbestos because the bill
doesn't mention any specific chemical or substance. That is not
an appropriate regulatory framework to set out. We are not
picking and choosing and pointing to specific substances.
Second, the EPA has made perfectly clear that this bill
gives them full authority and ability to take up asbestos,
among other things, as a high priority chemical. So there is no
debate that this bill would not give them full authority to do
that. That is extremely clear, including directly from the EPA.
Senator Inhofe. Others who wish to be heard? Senator
Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Yes, Senator Boxer and I had a press conference in this
room with Linda Reinstein about 6 weeks ago, talking about this
issue. It is not just asbestos, it is more than that. But
asbestos is the worst of the worse. EPA first tried to ban
asbestos in 1989, more than 50 countries have already banned
this substance because of the dangers to public health. The
safety risks and hazards of asbestos are well known.
Unfortunately, under this bill, despite having decades of
information about the hazards of asbestos and the impacts to
human health, the EPA is still required to go through a lengthy
review process. In the meantime, Americans will be exposed for
years to come from this asbestos danger.
This amendment is important because it will direct the EPA
to telescope the timeframe of its review and risk management,
shaving off years of delay allowed for in this underlying bill
that we are now considering. I think it is important to adopt
this amendment at this time, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
I thank you, Linda, and I thank all of those in the
asbestos community for standing up and raising this issue. From
1989 to today is a quarter of a century. It is time for us to
act. I yield back the balance of my time.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Other Senators? Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Chairman, I intend to support this
amendment. I think it is a good amendment. But again, in the
interest of clarity, I would like to point out what the recent
compromise does in this area. That is to take chemicals like
asbestos and others like formaldehyde, that have been heavily
studied by Federal agencies and by our national institutes, and
allow that work and those findings to be taken notice of and
adopted by EPA. So it will accelerate the way in which EPA can
address these chemicals that have received a lot of attention.
So I just want to make that clear about the way in which we
address the issue of asbestos and other well known harmful
chemicals in the bill. I appreciate for my colleagues, that is
not everything we would want. And again, I support this
amendment. But I want to make clear that that is what was
accomplished in the recent amendments.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Other Senators? Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. I wanted to address just a couple of points
that were raised. To Senator Vitter, I never heard of a
situation where because no other chemical is mentioned you
can't mention a chemical. The reason you do bills is to take
action that you want to take.
If you wanted to take action on asbestos, and as Senator
Markey said, this has been an issue since a quarter of a
century ago, you put it in the bill. This is a free country.
And you write a bill, and you take care of the things that are
important.
I also want to make a point that I do so appreciate what
Senator Whitehouse has stated. But we have to be clear. In the
underlying Vitter amendment, there is no deadline for
implementation, even after a chemical is deemed unsafe. There
are deadlines to get it to that point, but there is no
timeline. That is why in our amendment, we say enough is enough
when it comes to a chemical that is killing 10,000 people a
year. Some of your constituents, some of my constituents. Just
a tiny bit of that gets in the lung, and it is over.
And if we can't at least come together on this and
remember, the whole TSCA was really based around--the TSCA case
was based around the issue of asbestos. The bill wasn't strong
enough at that time. So we want to make this bill strong. This
is an opportunity to add to the improvements that Senators
Whitehouse, Merkley, and Booker made along with Senators Vitter
and Udall. Let's make this bill matter.
And I want to say to the Asbestos Awareness Organization,
you are my heroes. You are my heroes. Because you didn't listen
to oh, forget it, the bill has a great name, everything is
fine. You read the bill, your lawyers looked at the bill, and
we saw how weak it was. And we have strengthened it because of
the work of my colleagues, Senators Udall and Vitter being
willing, because of you and the people out there and the 450
groups.
But let's make this bill better, and let's put asbestos in
there. Yes, mention it. You mentioned PBTs, which you didn't do
before. Now, happily, you have put that in there. You
mentioned, you changed it to mention PBTs. Change it to mention
asbestos. I hope we will have a good vote on this, and I would
ask that we have a recorded vote on this.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, dozens
of countries around the world either restrict or ban asbestos.
Senator Boxer. That is right.
Senator Sanders. The United States should not be behind
dozens of other countries. So if we are dealing with a bill
addressing toxic chemicals, clearly asbestos should be front
and center. I strongly support this amendment.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you. Just very briefly, I support the
amendment. I am grateful for the indefatigable persistence of
Senator Boxer and her leadership as well as others of my
colleagues. So I support the amendment.
I do have to leave very soon. I have given my proxy votes
over. I just want to thank, in general, Senator Boxer and
Senator Inhofe for supporting the negotiation process in which
Senator Whitehouse, Senator Merkley and myself have been
pushing for and working with Senator Vitter and Senator Udall
in improving this legislation. The gains that were made, as
have been mentioned multiple times by Democrats and Republicans
on this committee, have been significant and have taken it a
long way. I support these amendments that we are going through
now, because they can make it even better.
But as a new Senator, the experience I have had in working
in partnership and trying to improve something has been a very
good one, and I am very encouraged by the process. Again, for
the record, I want to say I support this amendment that is up
right now. I am grateful for Senator Boxer's continued efforts.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Booker.
Others who wish to be heard?
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, may I put my
statement, my full statement, into the record?
Senator Inhofe. Yes, your full statement will be in the
record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Booker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. The Boxer Amendment No. 1 is before us. Is
there a motion?
Senator Whitehouse. So moved.
Senator Inhofe. Second?
Senator Boxer. Second.
Senator Inhofe. And a roll call has been requested. The
Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
Senator Booker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
Senator Capito. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper.
Senator Carper. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer.
Senator Fischer. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Vitter.
Senator Vitter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. No.
Senator Boozman, would you like to be personally recorded?
Senator Boozman. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be
personally recorded as a no. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 11.
Senator Inhofe. The amendment has failed.
Other amendments? Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Markey No. 1.
Senator Inhofe. Number 1, all right. Senator Markey, please
proceed.
Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This is
an alternative way of dealing with the asbestos issue without
naming asbestos or any dangerous chemicals. Because there are
some chemicals for which we already have decades of data. We
already know that they leech out of furniture or plastic, how
they get into people's bodies, how they cause disease and even
cause deaths.
There are chemicals that have been studied by independent
scientists at the National Institutes of Health, the National
Academy of Sciences, or the World Health Organization and have
been determined to cause cancer or have other serious, chronic
health impacts. Some of these chemicals have even been banned
by other countries. Yet under the bill, even those chemicals
would be subject to further study by the EPA, causing even
further delay in protecting the health of American citizens.
A perfect example of such a chemical is asbestos. We have
more than 50 years of data on asbestos, and the harms it causes
to human health, including lung cancer and mesothelioma. More
than 50 countries have already banned asbestos. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer has listed it in
its highest and most dangerous cancer category. The EPA already
attempted to ban asbestos but was challenged by industry, and
the ban was struck down by the court.
Under this bill, EPA would have to start at the beginning
of a 7-year process to issue a regulation protecting the
American public from the dangers of asbestos. Although the
manager's amendment does encourage EPA to be more efficient by
using work done by the National Academies of Sciences and other
Federal agencies, it does not allow EPA to take immediate steps
to protect the public.
Under my amendment, chemicals which have already been
deemed by EPA to be worthy of further assessment and have also
been deemed as a carcinogen by either the National Institutes
of Health or the National Academies of Science or the World
Health Organization or have been banned by a foreign country
would be eligible for fast regulation by the EPA.
This discretionary authority would allow the EPA to step in
and protect the public from the chemicals we already know are
the worst of the worst without having to go through a lengthy
re-review and assessment. Some of these chemicals have already
been reviewed, over and over again. To add another 7 years,
when we already know what the problem is, to tie the hands of
the EPA, really in my opinion is unnecessary. It is why I have
made my amendment, and I urge an aye vote from my colleagues.
[The text of the amendment No. 1 offered by Senator Markey
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Others who want to be heard?
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. With
all due respect, I think this is sort of the fire, ready, aim
amendment. This bill gives EPA full authority to do its work as
quickly as it can but to go through the proper procedure and
safety assessments to do that, not to reach conclusions first.
Now, if there is a body of evidence, as there may be in certain
cases, EPA has full authority to take into account that
research, that body of evidence. But this amendment goes way
beyond that, and essentially has EPA acting before doing that
proper work.
Now, again, if EPA can reach conclusions more quickly in
some cases because of that work that is existing, this
underlying bill absolutely allows EPA to take that into
account, but doesn't let it reach a conclusion first and then
look at the evidence. So I oppose this amendment.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Yes, thank you.
I just want to say, the National Academy of Science, if you
were to stop someone in the street and say, who do you believe
more, Senators or the National Academy of Sciences when it
comes to protecting the health of the people? We all know it
would be 100 to nothing if you asked 100 people.
All Senator Markey is saying, and I just don't understand
the reluctance to accept this. It just shows me such a closed
mind and where you really stand on this issue. This is simply
saying that if the National Academy of Sciences has found that
chemicals are particularly harmful and dangerous, why do we
need to just reinvent the wheel and tell EPA, well, ignore all
that, let's just go? This is such a common sense, taxpayer
saving amendment. And that is the point. I really hope we can
just break the logjam here and at least accept this very simple
amendment.
I thank the Senator for it.
Senator Markey. If the gentlelady would yield.
Senator Boxer. I would yield.
Senator Markey. I thank the Senator. And again, that is the
point.
Senator Boxer. Gentlelady. I haven't heard that since I was
in the House a thousand years ago.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. Why waste time and money when the most
renowned scientific bodies in the world have already determined
that something causes cancer? Already determined that something
causes cancer. Why have another 7-year process? It is pretty
common sense here and it will save money. Again, I yield back.
Senator Boxer. Yes, and 85 percent of the budget of the
National Academy of Sciences is paid for by, guess by whom?
Your taxpaying public. So why not save funds, utilize the
National Academy of Sciences on this? As I say, I can
understand why you might object to some other amendment. But I
do not get why you would object to this amendment.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a motion?
Senator Boxer. I do so move.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a second?
Senator Markey. Second. I request a roll call vote, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. A roll call vote has been requested on
Markey No. 1. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
Senator Boozman. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
Senator Capito. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Cardin votes aye, and said he wanted to
tell you, Mr. Chairman, he wanted to be here but he is managing
with Senator Corker the bill on the floor. So we really miss
him, but he has to be on the floor.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer.
Senator Fischer. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Vitter.
Senator Vitter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. No.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
The Clerk. You are not.
Senator Carper. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 8, the nays are 12.
Senator Inhofe. The Markey Amendment No. 1 fails.
Other amendments?
Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Markey Amendment
No. 2, please.
Senator Inhofe. Markey Amendment No. 2. Proceed.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This bill sets up a trial process to determine a chemical
safety with the EPA serving as the judge and the jury. But this
is no ordinary trial, because the chemical that is the
perpetrator is not in custody and protected from harming the
public while the trial is being conducted and the verdict is
being deliberated. Bail is always granted, each and every time,
to that chemical.
Under this bill, the EPA has 1 year to come up with a
screening process they will use to determine if a chemical is
high priority. This is analogous to giving an entire year to
determine who will serve on the grand jury. Once the grand jury
is assembled, it has 6 months to determine if there is enough
evidence to suggest a chemical is dangerous enough to public
health to be indicted and listed as a high priority. And only
then, after 18 months, can the actual trial begin.
But this is not a normal trial, because under this bill, it
could take anywhere from 3 to 5 years before the jury is
required to make a decision. We are now as long as 6 and a half
years, at this point, into a process. And the perpetrating
chemical is still allowed to roam in our homes and on our store
shelves, unfettered. If the jury decides that the chemical is
indeed guilty of being unsafe, the judge then begins the
sentencing process and will have 2 years under this bill to
determine what types of restrictions should be placed on the
chemical. In some cases, the judge may determine the chemical
should be locked up for life, and in others the judge may
decide it is enough to make the chemical register as a labeled
offender.
But what is alarming is that even after 8 and a half years
of trial, the bill has no deadlines when the sentence actually
starts. The judge may sentence this chemical to life in prison,
but it may decide that sentence doesn't even have to start for
another 20 years.
All this time, all the way until the final sentence is
started, all the rules implemented, the public's health remains
in danger, and not even the States, not even the States can
step in to act.
My amendment simply requires that a time limit be placed on
when an implementation or sentencing would begin. Under my
amendment, after the final regulation is issued by the EPA,
industry will have a minimum of 3 years to comply with the
ability to extend for an additional 2 years if there is some
technological reason that prevents earlier compliance.
This would bring TSCA in line with other environmental
statutes, like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, which
also contain statutory deadlines for regulation, implementation
or compliance. I urge my colleagues to support this simple,
straightforward and incredibly important amendment. It says
yes, this chemical has a right to due process, but it does not
allow it to be open-ended. There have to be some deadlines,
there have to be some limits. That I think is what is missing
from this bill at this time. I urge an aye vote from my
colleagues.
[The text of the amendment No. 2 offered by Senator Markey
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Are there others who wish to be heard?
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The
bill already has clear language that phase-outs, for instance,
of chemical substances shall be implemented in ``as short a
period as practicable'' and dates by which compliance is
mandatory ``shall be as soon as practicable.'' EPA wants the
flexibility to deal with a lot of different situations that
will be posed, thousands of different situations and different
degrees of implementation. So this gives that to them but
certainly mandates that they get about that as quickly as
possible.
Senator Inhofe. Other Senators?
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. If I could thank Ed for this, and also,
Senator Markey, your, as Senator Carper said, extremely
interesting way of explaining the criminal chemical at stake.
Let's just be clear. When all the dust settles and everyone has
a chance to read this bill, without this amendment, there are
no deadlines to act on a chemical that is dangerous. You heard
it, 20 years, maybe that is good enough for some of your
grandkids, but it ain't good enough for mine. This is
outrageous. This compromise, which moves forward in four or
five areas, has not moved forward on deadlines for action.
So you don't have to be all that cynical to understand that
with all the pages and with all the descriptions, nothing
really has to happen at any time in the universe. And that is
why we offered action on asbestos in a certain timeframe.
And by the way, I got a note from one of the groups sitting
out there, very interesting, that PCBs were the only chemicals
mentioned in the last TSCA, which was so unsuccessful. But that
was the only example of where there was protective action. So
this idea that you can't mention a chemical and you shouldn't
have deadlines, that is coming, in my opinion, straight from
the hearts and minds of chemical companies. Of course they
don't want it. They don't want to have to act. So they come to
the table and they agree to something, and at the end of the
day, there is no deadline for them to have to act. So what is
the use of it?
And I think the fact that Republicans have so far in group
voted against every single perfecting amendment says reams
about this bill. I hope that we can pass this. Because it is a
3-year deadline for the manufacturer to comply. And the
deadline could be extended for 2 years.
If you said to somebody in the street, again, there is a
dangerous chemical, when do you think it ought to be taken out
of your products? You know what they would say? Yesterday. Take
it out of my products. And it gives them 5 years, and that is
not good enough for Senator Vitter. Again, I am perplexed at
the fact that we are not taking some of these perfecting
amendments.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a motion? Oh, Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Just a word. I am so delighted to hear the
great confidence that my Republican colleagues now have in the
EPA.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sanders. It is really nice to hear all these
converts. I remember when Gina McCarthy was up here, we didn't
quite hear those words. And we don't hear them in the budget,
where the goal of many Republicans is to decimate the funding
of the EPA. So I hope that you will remember what you are
saying today and the great confidence you have in that agency,
they will be well funded, and you will treat the administrators
with respect.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a motion?
Senator Boxer. Yes, I move the Markey amendment.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a second?
Senator Markey. Second.
Senator Inhofe. The vote is on the Markey Amendment 2. All
those in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Senator Inhofe. Opposed, no.
Senator Boxer. Recorded vote.
Senator Inhofe. Recorded vote is requested. The Clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
Senator Boozman. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
Senator Capito. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper.
Senator Carper. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Crapo. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds.
Senator Rounds. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Vitter.
Senator Vitter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 11.
Senator Inhofe. And the amendment fails.
Other amendments?
Senator Boxer. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. First of all, let me thank Senator Boxer,
because she had a long list of amendments, and she has agreed
to just pare them down to three. That is very respectful of
everyone's time. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely. And should this get to the
floor, you will hear all of them.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. I am so fond of you, Mr. Chairman, I just
didn't want to ruin your morning completely.
So I have Boxer-Carper Amendment No. 3, please.
Senator Inhofe. You are recognized.
Senator Boxer. This amendment will protect contamination of
drinking water supplies from chemical spills, such as the
Freedom Industry spill in West Virginia. This amendment
requires consideration of whether a chemical substance is
stored near drinking water sources when prioritizing chemicals
for assessments.
Communities need to know that the chemicals stored near
streams and rivers supplying their drinking water have been
assessed and that the potential for a spill is taken into
account. And if, God forbid, a spill happens, they know what
chemical it is, and they know what steps to take. I remember
the West Virginia spill, going through with my colleagues from
West Virginia, the most frightening part was at first no one
knew what was in there. So we need to know what is stored near
drinking water supplies.
The people of Charleston, West Virginia, found out the hard
way that the chemical that was spilled from the Freedom
Industries facility had not been assessed. No one knew what
effect the chemical would have on human health from using their
water for drinking, cooking or bathing. It is just simple,
common sense that EPA should place a priority on assessing
those chemicals that pose a risk to our drinking water. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
[The text of the Boxer-Carper Amendment No. 3 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Others wanting to be heard?
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying that
where we stand on a particular issue depends on where we sit. I
sit here with all of you in the Senate, I spend a lot of time
in Delaware. But when I was a kid, I started my life in West
Virginia. Never lived in Charleston, I was from Beckley. Lived
there about 6 years until we moved on to Virginia.
This is an issue that is important to me on a personal
level and to my family, I have a lot of family still living, as
Senator Capito knows, a lot of family still living in West
Virginia. This is an issue that is very much on their minds.
They would want me to join Senator Boxer not only in supporting
this amendment, but in co-sponsoring it. And I am pleased to do
so.
I am going to take this moment, I may not have the time
later on, just to say how grateful I am to you, Mr. Chairman,
to you, Senator Vitter, to Senator Udall, to Senator Merkley,
to Senator Whitehouse, to Senator Booker, Senator Boxer and all
who have worked to make this bill better. We started off with
legislation offered by Senator Lautenberg, whom we all revere.
And I will be honest with you, as much as I loved Frank, it
wasn't the best bill that he ever introduced. The collective
efforts of a lot of people on both sides of the bill have taken
this legislation so much farther down the road where it needs
to go.
The people came to me, Mr. Chairman, after the election of
last November 1, people want us to work together, they want us
to get things done, they want us to find ways to strengthen the
economic recovery. This legislation provides certainty and
predictability for the chemical industry, which they want, and
which they need. But at the same time, it speaks to the need
for protecting our public health and protecting our environment
in ways that the original legislation did not do. So I just
want to thank each of you for that terrific bipartisan effort
to get us to a much better place.
I want to thank Collin Peppard, a member of my staff who
has worked so hard with Democrat and Republican staff in this
regard. I would thank the staff members of both sides that have
worked tirelessly for days, weeks, months now, years to get us
to a better place. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
Section 4(a) of the underlying bill already addresses the
hazard and exposure potential of the chemical substances being
directly taken into account. EPA can absolutely and should and
will take into account that sort of factor. So that is already
in section 4(a) of the bill. So I oppose the amendment.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say, the reason we are
defeating these amendments is not because we are not open-
minded, it is because we are and have been open-minded, have
been working with all folks who have come to the table for a
serious work effort for months and months and months. All sorts
of changes have been happily taken and incorporated into the
bill. Senator Boxer was not an active part of that process;
that is her right. But that is what has been going on for
months.
So now we face a choice, to adopt a lot of things that are
going to disrupt the balance of the bill, in which case we will
have the status quo, the present TSCA, unreformed, unimproved
for the foreseeable future. Or to move forward with the first
major bipartisan piece of environmental legislation in years. I
strongly urge us to do the latter.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. I want to respond to this, my colleague said
I wasn't part of the process. Well, maybe I wasn't in secret
negotiations, that is true. But I was part of the process,
because I was being briefed on what was happening. And working
with everyone to get to the place we got.
I had several press conferences, because I knew that you
were working to try and move this bill forward, and you did. So
it doesn't mean because a lot of us weren't in that room, and I
had asked my colleagues to go and negotiate, because I think
someone who is a good chairman or a good ranking member knows
the personalities, knows how it can get done. This is what you
do.
And maybe Senator Inhofe wasn't in that room, but I know he
trusted you, David, to do what you did. And I trusted my
colleagues. And they checked in with me. And when it was going
down a bad path, David, I told them it was going down a bad
path.
So here is where we stand. Not all genius resides in a
quiet room in the Capitol. That is the point of this. And what
I see here is a complete disinterest, because people weren't in
that room, in that secret room, a disinterest in working
together on the Republican side. Now, maybe it will change,
maybe we will get a couple of Republican votes on some of these
amendments. But I just don't understand that kind of a process.
And I don't think the people out there want that kind of a
process. They want bills to continue to be improved. When they
get out of a secret room and a back room which sometimes is
necessary to move something forward, they want to see us
continue to work. They don't want to see it shut down and have
all Republicans vote no, every single time. It doesn't give a
good feeling that this is on the level.
So you are right, I wasn't in the room. But I was very much
a part of what was happening. And it is not just me, it is a
lot of other members here who I also talked to who weren't in
the room, if I might say. And they all were involved in this.
So the bill is better in three or four areas, much better. And
we can make this bill a bill we can be proud of.
I believe if these amendments had passed this would be on
the way to being one heck of a bill. But we couldn't get
Republicans to support what I think are very, very reasonable,
reasonable amendments. Now, we got the substitute yesterday.
OK, let's be clear. And we have put all of our energy into
analyzing the substitute, because we knew the parameters, but
we hadn't seen the language. And we will continue to critique
the language, to embrace the language where we feel it is good.
But this is a moving process. And just to say that you will
never pass an amendment just because there was an agreement in
a private room, that is not the kind of legislation that I
think is right. You need to constantly improve. And I am
hopeful now, maybe, maybe, maybe, we can get support for the
Boxer-Carper legislation to say, and that is what is pending
here, that we ought to make a priority, make it a priority to
know what chemicals are stored near drinking water supplies.
And if you vote no on this, I would say you need to answer to
your constituents who say, Senator, why wouldn't you want to
know what chemical is stored near my drinking water supply?
Because we saw it happen in West Virginia. It was so upsetting
because people didn't know what was in there. And the company
that was storing, they then went out of business. It was a
nightmare, they went bankrupt. It was very, very chaotic.
This is simple. Just simple. And I beg you to think about
it. All we are saying is to the EPA, make it a priority if a
chemical is stored near a drinking water supply that you know
what the chemical is and what to do if, God forbid, there is a
spill. And I urge an aye vote, and I would move that amendment.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a second?
Senator Carper. Second.
Senator Boxer. I would like a roll call.
Senator Inhofe. A roll call has been requested. The Clerk
will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
Senator Boozman. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
Senator Capito. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper.
Senator Carper. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Crapo. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds.
Senator Rounds. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Vitter.
Senator Vitter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10, the nays are 10.
Senator Inhofe. The Boxer Amendment No. 3 failed to get a
majority. It has failed.
Other amendments?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I call up Boxer Amendment No.
5. It is Boxer-Markey-Sanders Amendment No. 5.
Senator Inhofe. You are recognized.
Senator Boxer. This amendment is identical to legislation I
previously introduced with Senator Crapo, who is also a co-
sponsor of this amendment, to help communities determine
whether there is a connection between clusters of cancer, birth
defects and other diseases and contaminants in the surrounding
environment. When the same disease impacts a family,
neighborhood or community, people have a right to know if there
is a common factor related to this cancer. This legislation
will help our communities investigate and address devastating
disease clusters as quickly as possible.
Here is what the amendment does. It will strengthen Federal
agency coordination and accountability when investigating
potential disease clusters. It will increase assistance to
areas impacted by potential disease clusters. It will
authorized Federal agencies to form partnerships with States
and academic institutions to investigate and help address
disease clusters.
And I want to add that it doesn't even occur unless a local
community asks for this assistance. So if you believe in local
government, and I started out as a county supervisor, and if
you believe that local government should protect its people and
they find that there is a cancer cluster in a local county or
city, they just don't have the resources. This amendment would
allow them to call on the Federal Government to help them
assess why this cancer cluster is occurring.
Again, when you see kids with cancer, you ought to think
that they got it for a reason. Senator Crapo knows what that is
like. He has worked with the young people in Idaho on this. And
these disease clusters should get the help and attention they
deserve. I hope we can do this now. If not, there is going to
be a long debate on the floor about kids with cancer and why on
earth this committee didn't do the right thing. So I am hoping
maybe on this one we will pass this amendment.
Senator Inhofe. Other Senators?
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. This
is, of all the ones we have discussed today, this is probably
the most significant in terms of altering the bill, because it
adds two entirely new titles to the bill, which are presently
completely outside the scope of EPA's authority. EPA, through
TSCA, addresses chemical risk assessment and management. It was
never intended to address public health disease investigation
and response. We do have agencies that do that. That is the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, and an
agency within the CDC, its Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry. That is what those specific Federal agencies
are all about.
This amendment would duplicate that work and would be a
major power grab by EPA and a major change to put into their
jurisdiction something which is completely outside their scope,
and they have no proven expertise in terms of public health. So
this is a big, big change to all sorts of present law, which I
would oppose.
Senator Inhofe. Other Senators? Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
First, I would like to thank Senators Merkley and
Whitehouse and Booker. But to thank Senator Udall, working
through Senator Vitter, on two provisions which are now in this
underlying draft, which I very much was advocating to be
included. I am very gratified that they are.
The first is that the States have a new workable way to
request permission from the EPA to protect their citizens from
particular chemicals before EPA has finished studying them. I
particularly appreciate the efforts to include that language,
which I thought would make it easier for States to get their
requests approved.
I am also very gratified that my request to change or
remove the so called unreasonable risk language in TSCA that
was used by industry to argue that EPA hasn't properly
considered the cost to industry when it sued to overturn EPA's
asbestos ban was also included. So in both of those instances,
I thank all the members for their help in getting that language
into the bill that we are now debating. I think that is very
helpful progress, and I thank Senators Udall and Vitter for
their openness on having that included and the other Senators I
mentioned for their help as well.
On the amendment which the Senator from California is
making, back in Woburn, Massachusetts, in the late 1970s, there
was a mother, Ann Anderson, who had a little boy, Jimmy, who
had contracted leukemia, cancer. And she found, just by
accident initially and then by her own work, other young
children in that same neighborhood who also had cancer,
leukemia. It was her work and then ultimately work which was
brought to the attention of the EPA and the Federal Government
that led to the book, A Civil Action, which helped to highlight
the problems that existed with these cancer clusters that were
being identified across the United States. And it was very
helpful in ensuring that there was a strengthened Superfund
law, which would be able to ensure that there was quicker
attention which was paid to these sites as they were identified
across the country.
What Senator Boxer's amendment does is to say that these
disease clusters must be more quickly identified and
investigated so that they are dealt with. They pose really
serious issues that clearly could help families, ordinary
families across the country in a much more expedited fashion. I
think this is a very important amendment to be adopted. I thank
the Senator for making it, and I urge an aye vote.
Senator Inhofe. Other Senators?
Senator Sanders. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Epidemiology
is one of the most important tools that science has. It tells
us why people in a certain part of the country or people who do
certain types of work come down with certain types of illness.
And it is a remarkable tool. I think we should do everything
that we can to encourage science based on the evidence that
takes place in looking at clusters. And I hope very much that
we could pass this amendment.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sometimes when you think about a disease cluster, you may
be thinking about issues of vaccinations or lack thereof, or a
whole series of issues related to viruses or bacterial
infections and so forth. But in this case, this amendment is
targeted at something that is very relevant to EPA, and that is
cancers and the possibility that that cancer cluster is being
caused by some toxic substance.
And in that sense, establishing a couple of response teams
that would go out and look at a cancer cluster and try to
determine if there is a toxic source is a sort of rapid
response that makes a tremendous amount of sense. If they
discover that there is toxic contamination driving this, then
it will lead to measures that will protect many citizens from
being the next victims of that toxic substance, the next
victims of that cancer. So bringing the toxic chemical
expertise of the EPA to bear is just the right type of
partnership embedded in this amendment. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Other Senators? Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, one more plea to my colleagues
on this. I think most of us know who Erin Brockovich is. She
has stood by my side and by the side of Senators Markey,
Whitehouse and others and various press conferences to point
out the fact that these cancer clusters are occurring more and
more across our Nation, particularly among children. And local
communities, whether they are in Idaho or in California or West
Virginia or Massachusetts or Oregon or wherever they may be,
people are desperate to seek answers.
Our bill doesn't add one penny, our amendment doesn't add
one penny. We are using existing resources. Now, the last, my
memory tells me, and my staff says my memory is correct, we
voted this bill out of this committee without a problem. And
the argument I hear from Senator Vitter is, this might add a
new title to the bill. Who cares? You are writing a bill so you
add another title to it if you make the bill better, and you
make the bill stronger, who cares? This is a once in a lifetime
thing. We are rewriting the toxic laws.
If we can add a section that addresses asbestos that is
killing people, 10,000 a year, if we can add a section that
says, without any further costs, we can look at these cancer
clusters, if we can add a section that says, we need deadlines
to act on dangerous chemicals, and if we can add a section that
says the States should have the ability to act, we are
improving a bill that many still oppose. Many still oppose. And
I will read that list when we get to final passage.
We still have huge opposition to this bill. We have tried
in good faith, both in the negotiating room with the door
closed and now out front so everyone can see how we can make
this bill better. This is the simplest thing. It has been voted
out of this committee before without a dissenting vote. As far
as I know, there is literally, even among the chemical
association, very little objection to this that I have ever
heard.
Why don't we help local communities deal with cancer
clusters? And so this is an opportunity to add that to this
bill. And I hope we will say yes to that.
Senator Boozman. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. I agree with Senator Sanders in the sense
that epidemiology really is a remarkable tool. I also agree
with Senator Boxer in the sense that this is a discussion that
needs to be had.
I guess my problem with the amendment is that we have an
agency, the CDC, that that is really what they do. And within
the agency, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, again, that is what they do. So the EPA is struggling
to do the mission that they have. Again, I am going to vote
against it. I am quite willing to have the discussion and see
what we need to do.
But logically, the place that this needs to go is within
the CDC. That is what these individuals are trained for. And
then also, beefing up the registry, doing whatever we need to
do, again, in this regard. Thanks.
Senator Boxer. May I respond to Senator Boozman? First, of
all, thank you for your kind words about the intent of this
amendment. And I really want to work with you on this. The
bottom part of it, the bottom line is, this is a team effort to
respond to cancer clusters. It includes the CDC. They are in
the group. But they want more support. So hopefully, Senator,
you and I can work on this and perfect it, so you feel
comfortable.
To me, if CDC is part of the leading part of the team, I
don't really--it doesn't bother me who is the lead. What is
important is taxpayers spend a lot of money on the CDC, on the
chemical agencies we have, on EPA, on all of these
organizations, National Academy of Sciences. Why not have them
together come into Arkansas or into California or into West
Virginia or Idaho or Louisiana when there is a problem? So I
hope that that, my friend's comments, would be an open
invitation to maybe work together as we get this down on the
floor.
Senator Boozman. I would be glad to work on it. Again, the
essence is, though, that the CDC needs to be the primary
whatever.
Senator Boxer. Well, we don't have a problem with that.
Senator Boozman. I am again concerned, right now, we have
finite dollars. It does make a difference in the sense that the
EPA is working hard to do the mission that they currently have.
So I think you dilute things, and it probably needs to----
Senator Boxer. This doesn't add one dollar, so don't make
like it does. This is taking the existing expertise in all the
agencies to help. If you think CDC has the ability alone to
send their teams out to 100 places in the country, you are
mistaken. They don't. And this would say, and I think it is
very fiscally sound, all the agencies that have a piece of this
work together.
So you can vote no and explain it however you want. But we
are not adding one dime. We are just saying, let the taxpayer
funds be used wisely. And when there is a cluster of children's
cancer, and children are dying, send a team out there. Send a
team out there. You want to argue, oh, it should be this person
who is the head of it, OK. I will have that argument, I don't
care.
But there is so much bureaucratic stuff coming out here as
to why we can't do what we are supposed to do to protect the
health and safety of the American people, which to me is our
fundamental responsibility. Our fundamental responsibility is
to them. It is not to the chemical companies, and it is not to
special interests. It is to the people of the United States of
America. And some of them are suffering mightily. And if we had
the ability to help them, so you add another little one page to
your bill which you actually now have a brand new bill, you
threw out the other one, thank God. So you have a new bill. Add
another section to it. Let's protect the people.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman, three comments in closing.
First of all, just to correct the record, this proposal has
always in the past had strong Republican opposition. No. 2, I
would be happy to partner and look at improvements that may be
necessary to make it the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and its Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, if they don't have some authority they need, I will
be eager to look at that in conjunction with anyone.
No. 3, Senator Boxer and others have been arguing that EPA
isn't going to act quickly enough in terms of the meat of this
bill, and yet she wants to add a whole new area of endeavor, a
brand new area of endeavor for EPA, which is epidemiology that
they don't have expertise in. I do think this would set us back
in terms of their focus, which is chemical risk assessment and
management. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am opposing the amendment.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to ask
unanimous consent to put into the record an article, Is There a
Cancer Cluster in West Salem?
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
[The referenced article follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. And if I might just comment on it, this is
a case where there was a rare bone cancer with multiple folk
being affected in a very small area. And indeed, the EPA went
out and investigated. Now, so this is not something the EPA,
what these cancers, when there is a cluster, there is suspicion
that a toxin is involved, this has been a key role. This is not
the role of the CDC, this is the role of the EPA. And they held
hearings, they held investigations.
But to create these response teams with the expertise to
respond in not such an ad hoc fashion would greatly increase
the efficiency and coordination between the EPA and the CDC and
the ability to have a team that is oriented to look at how this
is developing in difference places across the country and take
the lessons learned from one place to another. It is simply a
smart, more efficient way of doing what EPA is already involved
in.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Chairman, when I was first elected to
Congress in the 1990s, I worked very hard and successfully to
establish what is called a cancer registry, and that is to give
the CDC the tools that it needs to try to figure out why
certain types of illnesses in West Virginia or in Wyoming are
different than in Vermont and what did we learn from all of
that.
We know today, for example, breast cancer rates are
different in the United States than they are in Japan. Why?
What did we learn from that? We know that farmers, farmers who
deal with a whole lot of fertilizer and chemicals, have high
rates of certain types of cancer. We know that workers who are
employed in certain types of factories, working with certain
types of products, get higher rates of cancer. Why is that?
We can learn an enormous amount. We learned from over in
Massachusetts that certain types of chemicals put into drinking
water caused disastrous results. So this is an area fertile for
enormous scientific gains. I think we should encourage the EPA
to be involved in this area. So I very strongly support this
amendment.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I will be honest with you,
this is one I am torn on. And I think Senator Boxer is onto
something here. I think the concerns pointed by Senator Vitter
are not without substance. There is a role here for EPA, I
think maybe for OSHA too. I am inclined to say that the Centers
for Disease Control, maybe the Department of Health and Human
Services should lead on this. But there is a role for EPA.
Every now and then, on some of the other committees I serve
on, someone will offer an amendment, and we know there is
genuine interest, maybe bipartisan interest in trying to work
and get something done on that. I don't know that this
amendment is going to pass today, but I sure believe that when
we report this bill out of committee, and I hope we will today,
either with or without this amendment, if we do it without, my
hope is we will come back and see if we can't find some way to
come together on this issue.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. That is good. Is there a motion?
Senator Boxer. So moved.
Senator Inhofe. Second?
Senator Sanders. Second.
Senator Inhofe. The vote is on the Boxer Amendment No. 5.
Senator Boxer. Recorded vote.
Senator Inhofe. Recorded vote is requested. The Clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
Senator Capito. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper.
Senator Carper. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds.
Senator Rounds. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Vitter.
Senator Vitter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. No.
Senator Boozman. Mr. Boozman would like to be recorded as
no.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10, the nays are 10.
Senator Inhofe. Having failed to receive a majority, the
amendment is not agreed to.
Other amendments?
OK. I was going to advise that we are going to stay with
our agenda here until it is finished. There won't be any
breaks.
Seeing no further members wishing to seek recognition or
offer amendments, I move to accept Substitute Amendment to S.
697. Is there a second?
Senator Vitter. Second.
Senator Inhofe. The Clerk will call the roll.
Senator Boxer. Wait one moment. Is this the final passage
vote?
Senator Inhofe. This is the final passage of 697.
[The amendment summary and text of the amendment to S. 697
offered by Senators Boxer, Markey, and Sanders follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. I have a statement to make before I vote, if
you don't mind.
Senator Inhofe. That will be fine, if you want to be
recognized for a statement, you can be recognized.
Senator Boxer. I surely do, after all that.
Let me say, Senators, the fact of the matter is that the
original bill that we had hearings on is gone, it is away, it
is dead and gone. I am very appreciative of that. The bill that
is before us in the form of a Vitter substitute was subjected
to a lot of negotiations. And I thank my colleagues who were in
on those for making it better.
I particularly thank the groups out there, the public
health organizations, who were so strong that it forced the
negotiations into a much better place than a lot of us thought
they would go.
Having said that, I will be specific again about what is so
much better about this bill. There is no more preemption of
State air and water laws. There is co-enforcement, that has
been fixed. And a harmful provision that would have stopped the
importation of dangerous chemicals, that has been fixed. These
are fixes.
The preemption question is still not fixed. We had a chance
to vote on the Shimkus preemption which would have stopped the
Federal Government from preempting the State until the EPA
actually banned a chemical, and it was voted down by the
Republicans. Let's be clear; Republicans voted almost
unanimously against anything with one or two exceptions.
And so there is no secret than when and if this bill comes
to the floor or in a conference or wherever it goes from here,
it will face a tremendous number of amendments. I have 27; I
only offered 3. And I will be bringing those out. And I will
stand on my feet until I can't stand on my feet anymore,
because I refuse to bend in the face of serious problems in a
bill that is said to fix a broken law.
Now, I ask unanimous consent to place into the record
letters and statements from organizations that oppose this
Vitter substitute. They include: Safer Chemicals; Healthy
Families Coalition, which represents 450 environmental, labor
and public health groups; the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization; the AFL-CIO; the Environmental Working Group; the
Breast Cancer Fund; the Center for Environmental Health. So if
anybody thinks this fight is over, it is just beginning.
Because once we bring this to the floor, we will have a number
of us and others not on this committee who are going to file
perfecting amendments.
But I do say, again, to everybody, we got rid of a horrible
bill. It is gone. We have a bill that makes progress. And we
will continue to work on it until it really protects the people
who are hurting, who are losing family members, 10,000 a year,
who are losing children with bone cancer and everything else.
You know, one time in my career, people said, Barbara
Boxer, you are just too emotional. And you know what I said to
them? You know what I said to them? If you don't feel emotional
when faced with a widow, there is something wrong with you. I
urge a no vote.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Let me concur with Senator Boxer and thank
her very much for something that she obviously feels correctly
very, very strongly about.
Bottom line is that what we are voting on now is a much
better bill than what we started with, and I applaud all those
on both sides of the aisle who have made it a much better bill.
But when you are dealing with an issue of toxins killing our
children and causing massive health issues in our country, we
have to go further than that. We have to have the courage to
stand up to the chemical industry and do right by our people.
So we have made progress. We still have a long way to go.
And I look forward to working with Senator Boxer and others as
we get to the floor. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to
commend Senator Boxer for her emotion and say that I think we
all share it. We don't show it the same way, perhaps, but we
share it. We are focused on those situations. That is why I am
going to be voting yes to do what is long overdue to come
together and actually pass a strong, necessary updating of
TSCA, one that will empower the EPA to protect public health
and safety and also keep America as an innovation leader in
ways that further and enhance all of our lives.
I want to thank everybody involved in this process,
including Senator Udall on the Democratic side who has been a
great lead and all of his colleagues on the Democratic side,
including the three who have just joined us yesterday. I very
much look forward to going to the floor and getting this done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. There is a motion and a second to accept
the substitute amendment and report it favorably to the floor.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer.
Senator Boxer. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
Senator Capito. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
Senator Boxer. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper.
Senator Carper. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer.
Senator Inhofe. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
Senator Markey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
Senator Sanders. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions.
Senator Inhofe. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
Senator Inhofe. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 15, the nays are 5.
Senator Inhofe. The legislation is reported favorably to
the Senate.
Let me make one comment. I haven't made many comments. But
I think we are witnessing now why sometimes things don't get
done. There is not a person in this room who doesn't think that
the old 40-year-old legislation needs to be changed. We have
been working on this bill for 2 years. Senator Lautenberg was
working on it for about 10 years before that. Everyone agreed
it should be done, but it wasn't because it is complicated. You
can always find objections to anything that is complicated.
So I am thankful that that is behind us, and we will now
proceed to consideration of S. 544 and recognize the Senator
from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate that S. 544, the Secret Science Reform Act, has been
placed on this markup. As you know, the House Science Committee
has held extensive hearings on the House version of this bill.
The bill has passed on the House floor with bipartisan support.
I am pleased that we are now considering this legislation here
today.
I also want to thank the members of this committee who are
original co-sponsors of the bill, namely, Senator Vitter,
yourself, Mr. Chairman, as well as Senator Crapo and Senator
Fischer. What this bill is trying to accomplish is to ensure
that we strengthen the scientific information the EPA uses to
make regulations, guidance and assessments. The EPA has a long
history of relying on science that was not created by the
agency itself. This often means that the science is not
available to the public and therefore cannot be reproduced and
verified.
As a doctor, I know that the better data and research is
the kind that is transparent, publicly available and
reproducible. This legislation accomplishes all of these
points, and it gives the EPA the gold standard set by modern
scientific journals and even by the Obama administration's
stated policy. In fact, Dr. John Holdren, the President's own
science advisor, stated in June 2012 that ``Absolutely, the
data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions are
based should be made public. Once enacted, the EPA will benefit
from a better process to strengthen the research and data that
is the basis of their regulations, their guidance and their
assessments. By improving their scientific process, the EPA
will enhance the confidence that the public and policymakers
will have in the agency. The agency's policies must provide the
environmental and public health benefits that the EPA has
promised.''
Under this legislation, the EPA can propose, finalize or
disseminate regulations, guidance or assessments based only
upon science that is transparent, publicly available and
reproducible.
Critics have claimed that the bill would allow for personal
and confidential health information to be released to the
public. This bill ensures that there will be no public
dissemination of information that is prohibited by law, such as
personal health information. As a matter of fact, the
Congressional Research Service stated in March of this year
that ``Certain statutes, such as the Freedom of Information Act
and the Privacy Act, address what information the Federal
Government is required or permitted to disclose.'' The
Congressional Research service went on to say that the Secret
Science bill ``would be implemented in the context of these
statutes.''
In addition, once again, as a doctor, I know that medical
researchers code personal health information to protect patient
confidentiality.
Finally, let me say that this bill is not a burden on the
EPA. It does not apply retroactively to past EPA actions. It
only applies to new actions. Many scientific experts and former
EPA officials have stated the EPA can accomplish these
requirements without imposing burdens. This bill does not
require EPA to collect or disseminate information. It simply
tells the agency to rely only on the best publicly available
science.
So I encourage my colleagues to support strengthening the
EPA's regulatory process so that the public can have the
assurance that the EPA's regulations, guidances and assessments
will provide the environmental and health benefits that they
have been promised.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The text of S. 544 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. I am going to
comment also that this bill is essentially the same as the
House bill that passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.
One of my close friends, Lamar Smith, who is the author of that
bill, it is one that is very, very meaningful to most of us.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Yes, I am going to yield most of my time to
Senator Markey. I want to make a point, though. We just voted a
bill that everyone on the Republican side says, oh, we are
going to give the EPA all this authority, take authority away
from the States, and at the same time now, we take away the
ability for the EPA to use science. This is insane. It is just
a joke. And it costs a billion dollars.
This is the deal. My friends who are so fiscally
responsible, according to the CBO, complying with the
requirements of this bill will coast a billion just over the
next 4 years. But the bill provides only a million a year for
EPA. This is a joke. And I know I speak for every single
Democrat on this side. We are appalled at this bill, and we are
going to really make it hard to you to get this on the floor.
But move forward. And I would yield the rest of my time to
Ed Markey.
Senator Markey. I thank you. I thank the Ranking Member.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Sanders is seeking recognition.
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me quote from
the letter from the president of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science. She writes, ``I am writing on
behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, the world's largest general scientific society, to
express deep concerns about the impact of this legislation.''
We have another letter from the Allergy and Asthma Network, the
American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Lung
Association, the American Public Health Association, the
American Thoracic Society, Health Care Without Harm, National
Association of County and City Health Officials, National
Association for the Medical Direction of Respiratory Care,
Trust for America's Health. They urge a no vote on this
legislation.
Now, with all due respect to my good friend, Senator
Barrasso, and Senator Inhofe, both are good friends, you
represent a political party which overwhelmingly rejects what
the vast majority of scientists are telling us about the most
important environmental crisis facing humanity, and that is
climate change. And in fact, all over this country and all over
the world, the Republican party is perceived to be an anti-
science party. And now you are coming before this committee and
saying, we should tell the leading scientists of the world how
they should do science based on the fact that we, Republicans,
most, not all, have rejected the overwhelming amount of
scientific evidence on a key scientific issue, which is global
warming.
So I would quote what Senator Boxer said. This is kind of
laughable, and I would urge a strong no on this vote.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of
concerns about the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015. First, it
is obviously ironic that a bill that claims to reform science
allegedly done in secret would not get the benefit of a hearing
in the U.S. Senate before we would be marking it up. Just as
science benefits from transparency, so does legislating. And
that is why the Democratic members of the committee joined with
Senator Boxer and me in sending the chairman a letter
requesting that this controversial bill have a hearing before
we mark it up.
Good legislative process is similar to the scientific
method every elementary school student learns. You ask a
question, then you gather data to investigate a possible
answer, and finally you reach a conclusion. But now we are
considering a legislative conclusion before we have done the
legislative investigation.
And even while we are considering this conclusion today, I
am told that this committee is planning to hold a hearing on
EPA science next month taking this bill up now before there is
a hearing does not make any sense. Without a hearing we are
left to grapple with deciphering bill language that appears to
dramatically change what data and scientific research the EPA
can use in fulfilling its mission to protect public health and
welfare. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the
effect of this bill would be to cut in half the number of
studies EPA would use to inform its actions.
Our Nation's environmental laws have succeeded over the
years because EPA is required to use the best available
science. This bill would force them to use whatever science was
available after legal challenges generated from the broad
language of this legislation.
Instead of enabling the EPA to keep improving the clean air
and water protections that benefit all of us, this bill
protects polluters by effectively limiting what information EPA
can use to inform its work. For example, the requirement that
information be publicly available online will preclude
confidential industry data from being used to inform EPA's
actions. It would also keep most health studies which us
personal health data from being used.
Health studies would face another challenge on the language
on reproduction of research results. Many health studies
involve information from a large number of people gathered over
years and even decades. Waiting for a decade to reproduce
results about the health impacts of air pollution would just
mean more kids with asthma and more illnesses that could have
been avoided.
EPA would also lose the ability to use information that was
developed from one-time events like toxic air pollution
releases and oil spills. We should want EPA to learn from the
results of using dispersants during the BPA oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico. This bill would prevent that.
Science should be at the foundation of health and
environmental policymaking. Transparency and reproducibility
are fundamental to good science and the peer review process and
deserve our attention.
I have been working for years to create and improve the
public registry of clinical trials that is now maintained by
the National Institutes of Health, for example. It provides an
additional way for researchers and the public to review health
research while protecting the individual participants of those
studies.
We should be working to strengthen the scientific
information EPA uses to protect public health and improve air
and water quality, not limiting it as this bill does. To
paraphrase my Republican colleagues, this is something that
absolutely does not require not science, not silence that will
in fact inhibit legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry,
but in fact, in my opinion, this debate should be about how we
have more openness, how we ensure that this process is aired
out so that the decisions which we are about to make would be
those based upon the information which we need.
And I will have two appropriate amendments to make in order
to correct that at the appropriate time in this process. And I
yield back.
Senator Inhofe. And I would advise the Senator, the
appropriate time is here. Do you seek recognition for an
amendment?
Senator Markey. I do seek recognition, and I would like to
offer Markey Amendment No. 1.
Senator Inhofe. Markey Amendment No. 1. You are recognized.
Senator Markey. I thank you, and I would like to, I am
offering this with Senator Boxer, and co-sponsored by Senator
Whitehouse.
This amendment would change the criteria for scientific and
technical information by striking the language that effectively
limits what information EPA can use to inform its work and
replaces it with a requirement that the funding sources of the
information be made publicly available. The language my
amendment strikes would restrict the information EPA could use
in a number of ways, as I outlined in my earlier statement.
My amendment would replace this problematic language with a
requirement that the funding sources of the information the EPA
uses be made publicly available. Disclosure of funding
relationships leads to the open debate that is necessary for
responsible rulemaking. For example, the Journal of the
American Medical Association, the American Meteorological
Society, and the American Geophysical Union require the
disclosure of funding sources and potential conflicts of
interest.
Companies and organizations funding legitimate intellectual
and scientific inquiry to use the term Republican colleagues
have used previously should have no trouble in disclosing their
financial support. This is a common sense amendment that would
fix major problems in the underlying bill and add additional
requirements that would improve transparency of information
that EPA uses to make its decisions.
I urge an aye vote.
[The text of Markey-Boxer Amendment No. 1 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
oppose the Markey Amendment No. 1. This amendment would strike
the most important provision of the bill, the provision that
requires the EPA to rely on scientific and technical
information that is publicly available online in a manner that
is sufficient for independent analysis and insert a requirement
that EPA rely on information that is ``funded by sources that
are made publicly available.''
This amendment completely defeats the purpose of the bill,
which is to ensure that EPA actions are based on the best
publicly available science that can be verified by independent
experts. I strongly recommend a no vote.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, because the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts talked about wanting to clear the
air. But virtually all the Clean Air regulations under the
Obama administration have been justified by data collected over
30 years ago, over 30 years ago, which has been withheld from
the public and cannot be replicated. That is the problem here,
Mr. Chairman, so I would recommend a no vote.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a motion on the Markey Amendment
No. 1?
Senator Boxer. So moved.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a second?
Senator Gillibrand. Second.
Senator Inhofe. Is a roll call required? The Clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
Senator Capito. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds.
Senator Rounds. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Vitter.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
Senator Wicker. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 11.
Senator Inhofe. Having failed to receive a majority, the
amendment is not agreed to.
Other amendments? Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Amendment No. 2.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Markey, Amendment No. 2. You are
recognized.
Senator Markey. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And I
offer this amendment as well with Senator Boxer and Senator
Whitehouse. This amendment is simple. It adds a new section to
the bill to ensure that the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency can continue to consider and rely upon peer
reviewed scientific publications. Peer review is the foundation
of modern science. It is a self-correcting process that has
helped to advance science, technology and public health in
America and around the world.
As Republican colleagues wrote in February, ``The
credibility of a scientific finding, research paper, report of
advancement should be weighed on its compliance with the
scientific method and ability to meet the principles of sound
science. In short, it should be weighed on the merits.''
I agree with that. That is why the EPA Administrator should
be encouraged to rely on peer-reviewed science, which by
definition has been weighed on its merits. The EPA
Administrator should be able to continue using the best and
most current peer-reviewed science to inform the critical role
for the EPA. I urge a yes vote on my amendment.
[The text of Markey-Boxer Amendment No. 2 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I will speak in opposition to Markey
Amendment No. 2. This amendment would add a provision to the
bill allowing the EPA to use information in peer-reviewed
literature, even if publication is based on data that is
prohibited from public disclosure. This amendment completely
defeats the purpose of the bill, which is to ensure that EPA
actions are based on the best publicly available science that
can be verified by independent experts.
But by stating that nothing in the Act prevents the EPA
from considering or relying on any peer-reviewed science, the
amendment seems to imply that the underlying bill would
otherwise do so. EPA, through its implementation of the
Information Quality Act, is already required to rely on peer-
reviewed information. Nothing in this bill changes that.
What the bill would accomplish and what this amendment
would undermine is to ensure that the science the EPA relies on
is transparent and verifiable to a much greater agree than peer
review allows. Peer review alone is not a sufficient check. One
of the problems leading to this bill is the EPA relies on peer-
reviewed studies where the peer reviewer did not even have
access to the underlying data.
The simple premise behind the bill is that public policy
should be based on information that is public. You take a look
at peer review alone, it doesn't provide the necessary level of
transparency or opportunity to allow independent scientists to
verify the work that the EPA relies on.
For this reason, I urge a no vote on the amendment.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a motion?
Senator Markey. I so move. Will you call the yeas and nays,
please?
Senator Inhofe. Is there a second?
Senator Boxer. Yes, second.
Senator Markey. And I ask for a recorded vote.
Senator Inhofe. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
Senator Capito. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds.
Senator Rounds. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Vitter.
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
Senator Wicker. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I would like to vote yes in
person. Aye.
Senator Inhofe. You are so recorded.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 11.
Senator Inhofe. The amendment failed to receive a majority.
Markey Amendment No. 2 is defeated.
Other amendments?
Senator Boxer. Yes, if I might.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. I would call up Boxer-Markey Amendment No.
2, which would add a new section to the bill to ensure that EPA
and others are not censored from using terms commonly found in
peer-reviewed scientific literature in official documents and
presentations.
[The text of Boxer-Markey Amendment No. 2 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. We have seen some Governors around the
country saying that their teams cannot, in their organization,
can't use the term global warming or climate change or other
phrases. I am hopeful that you will accept this by voice vote.
I would take it by voice vote.
Senator Inhofe. I believe we would accept it by voice vote.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Senator Inhofe. All those in favor of the Boxer Amendment
No. 2 say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Senator Inhofe. Opposed, no.
[No audible response].
Senator Inhofe. The ayes clearly have it. The amendment is
adopted.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Other amendments?
Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was concerned about the issue that was raised earlier
about the fact that we haven't had a hearing. These issues over
the use of science would benefit greatly from having experts in
the use of science explain to us the pros and cons of this
approach, or enlighten us. The fact that we are doing this
without any sort of hearing, I would just request, if it is
possible, to have a unanimous consent that we set this bill
aside until we have actually had testimony from experts, so
that the use of science is placed into the appropriate
understanding of those who know what they are talking about.
Senator Inhofe. The Chair objects.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Inhofe. Other amendments? If not, is there a
motion?
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would move approval
and adoption of S. 544.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a second?
Senator Rounds. Second.
Senator Boxer. May I be heard on this?
Senator Inhofe. You may be heard.
Senator Boxer. You know, it is rare that I say this, but
this bill, I look forward to it coming to the floor, because it
is going to pass, and I look forward to having debate with the
Republican party on science. I think that is a definite debate
that needs to be had.
Senator Inhofe. And I agree.
Senator Boxer. And I want to have a recorded vote on this.
And I look forward to that debate very, very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
Senator Boxer. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman.
Senator Inhofe. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer.
Senator Boxer. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
Senator Capito. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
Senator Boxer. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper.
Senator Carper. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo.
Senator Inhofe. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer.
Senator Inhofe. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
Senator Markey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley.
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
Senator Boxer. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions.
Senator Inhofe. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Vitter.
Senator Inhofe. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
Senator Boxer. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11, the nays are 9.
Senator Inhofe. That is a majority; S. 544 is reported
favorably to the Senate.
Now we move to the remaining legislation, the Scarano
nomination and resolutions to be reported favorably to the
Senate en bloc. However, before I do, does any member seek
recognition on the remaining agenda items?
Senator Boozman. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Is now the time to talk about the Cardin-
Boozman bill?
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Senator Boozman. Well, first of all, I would like to thank
Senator Cardin for his work on the Water Resources Research
Amendment Act. Senator Cardin and I introduced this legislation
last Congress. I am glad that we are working to advance it here
today.
Our bill reauthorizes a program that grants to 54
established water resources research institutes in each State,
territory and the District of Columbia for applied water supply
research. Although this is a very small grant program, it
allows Arkansas and other States to solve serious problems
related to our water needs.
For example, in Arkansas, the program allows researchers at
the Arkansas Water Resources Center to study how we can grow
crops while using less water and lowering costs. Each Federal
dollar spent must be matched with $2 non-Federal. This is the
highest match requirement of any Federal research program. As a
result, this program is a cost-effective way of solving water
quality and quantity problems.
Again, I appreciate Senator Cardin's work, and I am glad to
join him. I also thank you, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member
Boxer, for accommodating this bill in today's agenda. I thank
you.
[The text of the Cardin-Boozman legislation follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to report this in the
rest of the agenda just for the record.
Senator Inhofe. We are going to have to have one more show
up here to have the quorum. While we are looking, let me
mention one of the things in the final things to be considered
is the naming of a courthouse in Oklahoma City, the William J.
Holloway United States Courthouse. I have been very familiar
with this individual. He was supported by all the judges,
current and past. President Lyndon Johnson nominated Judge
Holloway to the Tenth Circuit in August 1968, where he served
as Chief Justice from all the way to 1991. He passed away in
2014.
Judge Holloway was the longest-serving judge in the Tenth
Circuit. During his service, he authored over 900 opinions. As
new Tenth Circuit Judge Robert Bacharach described Judge
Holloway, ``He simply decided cases by asking what does the
statute say, what does the Constitution say, what are the facts
of the case.'' And I can talk about him as long as I need to
until our eleventh person gets here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman, I also would say a remark or
two about the bipartisan legislation, S. 611, but would also
assure members that I will quit talking at such point as the
eleventh committee member arrives.
Senator Inhofe. Keep talking.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wicker. Let me just say, let me thank the members
of the committee for their indication of support for S. 611,
the Grass Roots and Small Community Water Systems Assistance
Act. It reauthorizes the Safe Drinking Water Act's technical
Assistance and Training provisions for the same $15 million per
year that it was previously authorized. The authorization--the
last authorization expired in 2004.
There is one small change, specifically under this new
legislation the EPA would have the authority to direct the
funding to non-profit organizations to also provide onsite
assistance, regional training and assistance with
implementation, monitoring, plans, rules, regulations and water
security enhancements to ensure compliance with the Safe
Drinking Water Act. And of course, what this whole program is
designed to do is to assist the small communities who would
very much like to comply with Federal law with regard to safe
drinking water but simply don't have the resources for the
technical assistance and training.
So I thank Senator Heitkamp for introducing this bipartisan
bill with me. And I thank the 17 co-sponsors, including 10
Republicans and 7 Democrats, for co-sponsoring the legislation,
many of whom are on this committee. I urge a yes vote, and
believe we will get a yes vote on S. 611.
Senator Inhofe. That will be considered en bloc.
Senator Wicker. Right.
Senator Inhofe. During my opening statement, Senator
Wicker, I commented that Oklahoma is enough like Mississippi
that we have an equal interest, and I would say the same thing
about South Dakota and Arkansas, there are a lot of small
communities who will be very pleased with the passage of your
legislation.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, sir.
Now, in addition, I assume that we have an indication that
that eleventh vote is on the way.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Senator Wicker. With regard to another piece of
legislation----
Senator Inhofe. Every time I hear that, I think they are
probably on the 14th Street Bridge right now.
Senator Wicker. Unfortunately, some were right here and
left, I think, not realizing that would cause a quorum to
evaporate.
Let me just state with regard to S. 1034, Mr. Chairman, a
bill to designate the United States Courthouse at 501 East
Court Street in Jackson as the Charles Clark United States
Courthouse, the most preeminent Mississippi jurist ever to live
was L.Q.C. Lamar, a Supreme Court justice who was mentioned in
President Kennedy's Profiles in Courage. He has received his
own recognition.
The second most prominent Mississippi jurist in history is
Charles Clark, native of Memphis, Tennessee, commissioned in
the Navy and nominated, confirmed in 1969 to the Fifth Circuit.
He served as Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit from 1981 until
1992, wrote over 2,000 opinions of the court and served as
chairman of the finance and executive committees of the
Judicial Conference of the United States.
So having taken care of L.Q.C. Lamar, this properly
recognizes, I think, the second most prominent jurist in the
history of our State. I thank the leadership of the committee
also for their indicated support of this legislation. Thank
you, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Well, let's see. We do have six Republicans
and four Democrats. Do you have one coming?
Senator Boxer. I don't know.
Senator Inhofe. I would prefer to go ahead and do this if
we could. However, if somebody else leaves, it will have to be
that way.
We have lots of activity out there.
Senator Boxer. I can stay 6 minutes.
Senator Inhofe. I think we already have a motion and a
second.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I have a little bit of
business. Can I ask unanimous consent that all of Senator
Cardin's statements on all the amendments and final be placed
in the record in the appropriate places?
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. I understand that Senator Sessions is
almost here.
Senator Carper. I think we have a jurisdictional battle,
because the Homeland Security Committee claims post office.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. OK. We are going to recess to the call of
the Chair. Unfortunately, there are no scheduled votes.
Senator Boxer. We can do the GSA ones.
Senator Inhofe. That is right, we only need seven for
those. We will break out from the en bloc the GSA resolutions.
Is there a motion to accept them en bloc?
Senator Boxer. Move to accept them en bloc.
Senator Inhofe. Second?
[Motion seconded.]
Senator Inhofe. All in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Senator Inhofe. Opposed, no.
[No audible response.]
[The text of the en bloc resolutions follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. They have been accepted.
Senator Boxer. And we need to meet off the floor.
Senator Inhofe. We are now recessing to the call of the
chair.
[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the meeting was recessed, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Resuming April 29, 2015, 5:30 p.m.]
Senator Inhofe. I call the business meeting back to order.
We have an agreement with the minority for a rolling quorum.
Additionally, we have two members of the minority, Senators
Cardin and Carper. I appreciate the opportunity finish our
business meeting on these remaining items.
I ask unanimous consent to call up the following remaining
bills and nomination en bloc and report them favorably to the
full Senate for consideration.
Those remaining items are the following: S. 653, Water
Resources Research Amendments Act of 2015. S. 611, Grassroots
Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act. S. 612,
A bill to designate the Federal building and United States
courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as
the ``George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States
Courthouse.'' S. 261, A bill to designate the United States
courthouse located at 200 NW 4th Street in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, as the ``William J. Holloway, Jr. United States
Courthouse.'' S. 1034, A bill to designate the United States
courthouse located at 501 East Court Street in Jackson,
Mississippi, as the ``Charles Clark United States Courthouse.''
Mr. Mark Scarano, nominee to be Federal Co-chairperson of the
Northern Border Regional Commission.
Is there a motion?
Is there a second?
Without objection.
The aforementioned bills and nomination are adopted by
unanimous consent and reported to the Senate.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that staff have authority
to make technical and conforming changes to each of the matters
approved including the morning of April 28.
Without objection.
I thank the members of the EPW Committee and adjourn.
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]