Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 89 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3511-S3525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TSCA MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate
the message to accompany H.R. 2576.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 2576) entitled ``An Act to modernize
the Toxic Substances Control Act, and for other purposes.''
with an amendment to the Senate amendment.

Motion to Concur

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to
the Senate amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that there now be 45 minutes of debate on the
motion, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
vote on the motion to concur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. For the information of Senators, this will allow us to
pass this bill tonight by voice vote.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for that 45 minutes of
debate, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, be recognized for 10
minutes; followed by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter; and then
go back and forth in 5-minute increments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I want to
make a little clarification.
Senator Udall has asked for 10 minutes. If we could use our time,
allowing this Senator 10 minutes, and then after Senator Vitter's time,
we would go to Senator Udall for 10 minutes and then back to the other
side. Then Senator Markey wanted 5 minutes and Senator Whitehouse
wanted 5 minutes as well--if it would go in that order as stated, with
10 for myself, 10 for Senator Udall, 5 for Senator Markey, and 5 for
Senator Whitehouse.
Mr. INHOFE. I believe that adds up to our 45 minutes, and I will just
not speak until after the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying the request?
Mrs. BOXER. There would be 5 minutes left, if that is all right.
Mr. INHOFE. I will amend my unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to start off by thanking my dear
friend, Senator Inhofe. We have had a wonderful relationship when it
comes to the infrastructure issues. We have not worked terribly well
together on environmental issues, but because of both of our staffs and
the Members of our committee on both sides of the aisle, we were able
to tough it out and come up with a bill that I absolutely believe is
better than current law.
I will be entering into the Record additional views by four leading
Democratic negotiators--myself, Senator Udall, Senator Merkley, and
Senator Markey.
I rise in support of H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act. I spoke at length about this before,
so I won't go on for a long time. But I do want to reiterate that the
journey to this moment has been the most complicated journey I have
ever had to take on any piece of legislation, and I have been around
here for a long time.
It was a critical journey. When naming a bill after Senator
Lautenberg, who fought for the environment all his life, the bill must
be worthy of his name, and, finally, this bill is.
It didn't start out that way. I used every prerogative I had, every
tool in my arsenal to bring it down until it got better, and it is
better. It is better than current law.
Asbestos, for example, is one of the most harmful chemicals known to
humankind, and it takes 15,000 lives a year. It is linked to a deadly
form of lung cancer called mesothelioma. People can breathe in these
fibers deep into their lungs where they cause serious damage. We have
addressed asbestos in this bill. We didn't ban it on this bill, which I
support--and I have stand-alone legislation to do that--but we have
made asbestos a priority in this bill.
Flame retardants are another category of dangerous chemicals. They
have been linked to a wide array of serious health problems, including
cancer, reduced IQ, developmental delays, obesity, and reproductive
difficulties. These harmful chemicals have been added to dozens of
everyday items such as furniture and baby products. So when we are
talking about TSCA reforming the toxic laws, we are not just talking
about a conversation, we are not just talking about a theory, we are
not talking about something you would address in a classroom. We are
talking about our families.
Now, the negotiations have been challenging. Many organizations in
many States stood strong despite the pressure to step back, and I am so
grateful to them for their persistence. I especially want to thank the
450 organizations that were part of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy
Families coalition that worked with me, as well as the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization for their efforts. Without them, I would not
have had the ability to negotiate important improvements.
Let me highlight briefly a few of the most important changes in the
final bill. I can't go one more minute without thanking the two people
who are sitting right behind me, Bettina Poirier, who is my chief of
staff on the committee and chief counsel, and Jason Albritton, who is
my senior adviser. They worked tirelessly--through the night
sometimes--with Senator Inhofe's staff. Without their work, we never
would have gotten to this point, and we never would have gotten to a
bill worthy of Frank's name, and it means a great deal to me.
The first major area of improvement is the preemption of State
restrictions on toxic chemicals. In the final bill, we were able to
make important exceptions to the preemption provisions.
First, the States are free to take whatever action they want on any
chemical until EPA has taken a series of steps to study a particular
chemical. Second, when EPA announces the chemicals they are studying,
the States still have up to a year and a half to take action on these
particular chemicals to avoid preemption until the EPA takes final
action.
Third, even after EPA announces its regulation, the States have the
ability to get a waiver so they can still regulate the chemical, and we
have made improvements to that waiver to make it easier for States to
act.
For chemicals that industry has asked EPA to study, we made sure that
States are not preempted until EPA issues a final restriction on the
chemical, and for that I really want to thank our friends in the House.
They put a lot of effort into that.
The first 10 chemicals EPA evaluates under the bill are also exempted
from preemption until the final rule is issued. Also, State or local
restrictions on a chemical that were in place before April 22, 2016,
will not be preempted.
So I want to say, as someone who comes from the great State of
California--home to almost 40 million people and which has a good
strong program--we protected you. Would I rather have written this
provision myself? Of course, and if I had written it myself I would
have set a floor in terms of this standard and allowed the States to
take whatever action they wanted to make it tougher. But this was not
to be. This was not to be. So because I couldn't get that done, what we
were able to get done were those four or five improvements that I
cited.
The States that may be watching this debate can really gear up and
move forward right now. There is time. You can continue the work on
regulations you passed before April. You can also have a year and a
half once EPA announces the chemical, and if they don't announce
anything, you can go back to doing what you did before. An EPA that is
not funded right, I say to my dearest friend on the floor today, is not
going to do anything. So the States will have the ability to do it. I
would hope we would fund the EPA so we have a strong Federal program
and strong State programs as well. But we will have to make sure that
the EPA doesn't continually get cut.

[[Page S3512]]

The second area of improvement concerns asbestos. I think I have
talked about that before. It is covered in this bill.
The third area of improvement concerns cancer clusters. This one is
so dear to my heart and to the heart of my Republican colleague,
Senator Crapo. We wrote a bill together called the Community Disease
Cluster Assistance Act, or ``Trevor's Law.'' Trevor's Law provides
localities that ask for it a coordinated response to cancer clusters in
their communities.
What Trevor taught us from his experience with a horrible cancer is
that sometimes these outbreaks occur and no one knows why. Yet it is
considered a local issue. Now, if the local community requests it--if
they request it--they will get help.
Fourth, we have something called persistent chemicals. Those are
chemicals that build up in your body. You just don't get rid of them.
They are a priority in this legislation.
Fifth, another one that is dear to my heart and dear to the heart of
Senator Manchin and Senator Capito is this provision that ensures that
toxic chemicals stored neared drinking water are prioritized. This
provision was prompted by the serious spill that contaminated the
drinking water supplies in West Virginia in 2014, causing havoc and
disruption. They didn't know what the chemical was. It got into the
water. They didn't know what to do. As we all remember, it was a
nightmare for the people there--no more. Now we are going to make sure
that the EPA knows what is stored near drinking water supplies.
The sixth is very important and is something that got negotiated in
the dead of night. I want to thank Senator Inhofe's staff for working
with my staff on this. The bill enables EPA to order independent
testing if there are safety concerns about a chemical, and these tests
will be paid for by the chemical manufacturer. I also want to thank
Members of the House who really brought this to us.
Finally, even the standard for evaluating whether a chemical is
dangerous is far better than in the old TSCA. The bill requires EPA to
evaluate chemicals based on risks, not costs, and considers the impact
on vulnerable populations. This is really critical. The old law was
useless. So all of these fixes make this bill better than current
Federal law.
Looking forward, I want to make a point. This new TSCA law will only
be as good as the EPA is good. With a good EPA, we can deliver a much
safer environment for the American people--safer products, less
exposure to harmful toxics, and better health for our people. With a
bad EPA that does not value these goals, not much will get done. But,
again, if a bad EPA takes no action, States will be free to act.
Mr. President, I ask for 30 additional seconds, and I will wrap this
up.
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, we do have this down with
five people.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds. I am just going
to end with 30 seconds, and I will add 30 seconds to your side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I say to the States: You are free to act with a bad EPA.
Compared to where we started, we have a much better balance between the
States and the Federal Government. It is not perfect. The bills I
worked on with Frank did not do this. They did not preempt the States.
But because of this challenging journey, we respected each other on
both sides, we listened to each other on both sides, and today is a day
we can feel good about.
We have a decent bill, a Federal program, and the States will have a
lot of latitude to act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise also to laud a really significant
achievement that we are going to finalize tonight with the final
passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century
Act.
This much needed bill will provide updates that have been due
literally for decades to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976,
known as TSCA for short, which has been outdated and overdue for
updating since almost that time. Now, getting to where we are tonight,
about to pass this by an overwhelming vote, following the 403-to-12
vote in the House a few weeks ago, did not happen overnight. In fact,
it took about 5-plus years.
In 2011 I started discussions with a broad array of folks, certainly
including Senator Lautenberg. That is when I first sat down with Frank
and started this process in a meaningful way and when we agreed that we
would try to bridge the significant differences between our two
viewpoints and come up with a strong bipartisan bill.
That same year I also sat down with John Shimkus of Illinois to let
him know that Frank and I were going to put in a lot of effort to come
up with this framework, and we wanted him to be a full and equal and
contributing partner. Over the next year and a half, we slogged through
that process of trying to come up with a strong bipartisan bill. It
wasn't easy. Between Senator Lautenberg and myself and our staffs and
other staffs, there was an often brutal stretch of difficult
negotiations and challenging times, testing everybody's patience.
Several times we walked away to come back together again. Finally, it
did come together. In early 2013, that really started taking shape.
Toward the end of April 2013, we were far enough along to lock a small
group of staff and experts in a room to finalize that first bipartisan
bill. There were folks like Bryan Zumwalt, my chief counsel then;
Dimitri Karakitsos, who is my counsel and is now a key staffer who
continues on the EPW Committee; Senator Lautenberg's chief counsel, Ben
Dunham; and his chemical adviser, Brendan Bell.
That led finally to this first bipartisan bill that we introduced on
May 23, 2013. Now, that wasn't the end of our TSCA journey.
Unfortunately, in many ways, the most difficult segment of that journey
was soon after that introduction on May 23, because on June 3, just a
few weeks later, Frank passed. The single greatest champion of
reforming how chemicals are regulated died at 89 years of age.
That was heartbreaking. But it was a moment when all of us who had
been involved only redoubled our commitment to following this through
to the end. Soon after Frank's unfortunate passing, our colleague Tom
Udall really stepped up to the plate in a major way to take Frank's
role as the Democratic lead in this effort. We had a quiet dinner one
night here on Capitol Hill to talk about our commitment to carry on
this fight and get it done. We formed a partnership and a friendship
that was really built around this work with an absolute commitment to
get that done. I will always be so thankful to Tom and his partnership
and also to his great staff, including their senior policy adviser,
Jonathan Black.
As with most major undertakings, we had a lot of other help all along
the way. Early on, at that stage of the process, Senators Crapo and
Alexander were extremely helpful. Also, a little later on, Senators
Booker, Merkley, and Markey did a lot to advance the ball and refine
the product. Of course, at every step of the way, I continued to meet
and talk with Congressman John Shimkus. He was a persistent and a
reliable partner in this process, as was his senior policy adviser,
Chris Sarley.
Throughout this process, staff was absolutely essential and
monumental. They did yeoman's work in very, very difficult and trying
circumstances. I mentioned Bryan Zumwalt, my former chief counsel. He
was a driving force behind this. I deeply appreciate and acknowledge
his work, as well as someone else I mentioned, Dimitri Karakitsos, who
continues to work as a key staffer on the committee and who is seeing
this over the goal line.
Let me also thank Ben Dunham, the former chief counsel to Senator
Lautenberg. I think in the beginning, particularly, Ben, Bryan, and
Dimitri gave each other plenty of help but worked through very
difficult negotiations to get it done.
Also, I want to thank Jonathan Black and Drew Wallace in Senator
Udall's office and Michal Freedhoff and Adrian Deveny in Senator
Markey's office.
On the outside, there are a lot of experts from all sorts of
stakeholders across the political spectrum, certainly including
industry representatives with the American Chemistry Council.

[[Page S3513]]

I want to thank Mike Walls, Dell Perelman, Rudy Underwood, Amy DuVall,
Robert Flagg, and, of course their leader, Cal Dooley.
Finally, there is one enormous figure who is owed a great debt of
gratitude and a lot of credit for seeing this over the goal line
tonight; that is, Frank's better half--and I say that with deep respect
and admiration to Frank, but surely his better half--Bonnie Lautenberg.
She has been called the 101st Senator, particularly on this issue. She
was devoted to seeing Frank's work completed. I thank her for her
relentless effort reaching out to Members in the House and Senate and
stakeholders to make sure this happened.
As I mentioned at the beginning, this is long overdue. All
stakeholders across the political spectrum agreed for decades that this
aspect of the law needed to be updated. We needed to fully protect
public health and safety, which we all want to do. We also needed to
ensure that American companies, which are world leaders today in
science, research, and innovation remain so and do not get put behind a
regulatory system which is overly burdensome and unworkable.
This TSCA reform bill, properly named after Frank Lautenberg,
achieves those goals. It is a positive, workable compromise in the best
sense of that term, so that we will achieve public health and safety.
It ensures that our leading American companies, great scientists, great
innovators, and great world leaders in this sector remain just that and
that they remain the world leaders we want and need them to continue to
be.
So I thank all of those who have contributed to this long but
ultimately successful and worthwhile effort. With that, I look forward
to our vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me just initially, while Senator Vitter
is still on the floor here, thank him so much. He was a great partner
in terms of working on this piece of legislation thoroughly through the
process over 3 years. We met, I think, about 3 years ago and had a
dinner and decided, after Frank Lautenberg had died--he did a lot of
work on the bill--that we would pick it up and make it happen. He has
been a man of his word, and it has been a real pleasure working with
him.
Let me just say about Chairman Inhofe that what they say in the
Senate is that if you have a strong chairman, you can get a bill done.
He has been remarkable in terms of his strength and his perseverance in
terms of moving this bill. So we are at a very, very historic point
today. I think I would call it a historic moment. I thank the Senator.
It has been a pleasure working with the Senator. I enjoined working
with the Senator when I was on the committee, and I am going to enjoy
working with Chairman Inhofe in the future in terms of many other
issues that come before us in the Senate.
I don't have any doubt that this is a historic moment several years
and Congresses in the making. For the first time in 40 years, the
United States of America will have a chemical safety program that works
and that protects our families from dangerous chemicals in their daily
lives. This is significant. Most Americans believe that when they buy a
product at the hardware store or the grocery store, that product has
been tested and determined to be safe. But that is not the case.
Americans are exposed to hundreds of chemicals from household items.
We carry them around with us in our bodies and even before we are born.
Some are known as carcinogens, others as highly toxic. But we don't
know the full extent of how they affect us because they have never been
tested. When this bill becomes law, there will finally be a cop on the
beat.
Today, under the old TSCA, reviewing chemicals is discretionary. When
this bill is law, the EPA will be required to methodically review all
existing chemicals for safety, starting with the worst offenders.
Today, the old law requires that the EPA consider the costs and
benefits of regulation when studying the safety of chemicals. Very
soon, EPA will have to consider only the health and environmental
impacts of a chemical. If they demonstrate a risk, EPA will have to
regulate.
Very soon, it will be enshrined in the law that the EPA most protect
the most vulnerable people--pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and
chemical workers. Today, the old TSCA puts burdensome testing
requirements on the EPA. To test a chemical, the EPA has to show a
chemical possesses a potential risk, and then it has to go through a
long rulemaking process.
Very soon, EPA will have authority to order testing without those
hurdles. Today, the old TSCA allows new chemicals to go to market
without any real review, an average of 750 a year. Very soon, the EPA
will be required to determine that all chemicals are safe before they
go to the market.
Today, the old TSCA allows companies to hide information about their
products, claiming it is confidential business information, even in an
emergency. Very soon, we will ensure that companies can no longer hide
this vital information.
States, medical professionals and the public will have access to the
information they need to keep communities safe. Businesses will have to
justify when they keep information confidential. That right will expire
after 10 years. Today, the old TSCA underfunds the EPA so it doesn't
have the resources to do its job.
Very soon, there will be a dedicated funding stream for TSCA. It will
require industry to pay its share, $25 million a year. In addition,
this new law will ensure victims can get access to the courts if they
are hurt. It will revolutionize unnecessary testing on animals, and it
will ensure that States can continue to take strong action on dangerous
chemicals.
The Senate is about to pass this legislation. It is going to the
President, and he will sign it. Over the past several days, I have
gotten the same question over and over: What made this legislation
different? Why was the agreement possible when other bills stalled? I
thought about it quite a bit. It wasn't that the bill was simple. This
was one of the most complex environmental pieces of legislation around.
It certainly wasn't a lack of controversy. This process almost fell
apart many times. It certainly wasn't a lack of interest from
stakeholders. Many groups were involved, all with strong and passionate
views and some with deep distrust. We faced countless obstacles, but I
think what made this possible was the commitment and the willpower by
everyone involved to see good legislation through and endure the slings
and the arrows. I say a heartfelt thank-you to everyone involved.

I remember having dinner with Senator Vitter one evening early on
when I was trying to decide whether I would take up Frank Lautenberg's
work on this bill. There was already plenty of controversy and concern
about the bill. Senator Vitter and I were not used to working with each
other. In fact, we have almost always been on opposite sides. But I
left that dinner with the feeling that Senator Vitter was committed,
that he wanted to see this process through and was willing to do what
it would take. For 3 years, I never doubted that. Both of us took more
than a little heat. We both had to push hard and get important groups
to the table and make sure they stayed at the table. I thank Senator
Vitter. He has been a true partner in this process.
There are many others to thank, and I will, but before I do that, I
want to say a few words about this bill's namesake. Frank Lautenberg
was a champion for public health and a dogged, determined leader for
TSCA reform. He cared so much for his children and grandchildren that
he wanted to leave a better, healthier, safer environment for them. He
always said that TSCA reform would save more lives than anything he
ever worked on.
This is a bittersweet moment for all of us because Frank isn't here
to see this happen, but I have faith that he is watching us and he is
cheering us on. His wife Bonnie has been here working as the 101st
Senator. She has been a force and inspiration, keeping us going,
pushing us when we needed it. She helped us fulfill Frank's vision.
In the beginning, we thought the bill might not ever get introduced
in the Senate. We entered this Congress after the Republicans took the
majority. Many felt that strong environmental legislation was
impossible. They urged us to wait. But many of us felt that 40 years
was already too long to wait. We knew we could do it, make it better,
and get it passed.

[[Page S3514]]

Senator Carper was one of those key members on the Environment
Committee. He gave us legs to get out of the gate. He and Senators
Manchin and Coons were among our original cosponsors. They recognized
that we had a great opportunity before us, and I thank them all.
They say that in order to get things done in Washington, you need a
good, strong chairman, and Chairman Inhofe fits that description. I
thank Chairman Inhofe and especially his staff, Ryan Jackson and
Dimitri Karakitsos. Chairman Inhofe's team was instrumental in moving
things forward and working with me to ensure that we built the broadest
possible support. They knew that with broad support, we could do better
than get it out of committee, we could get it across the finish line.
There are days when we all feel discouraged by gridlock here in
Washington, but Chairman Inhofe and Senator Vitter rose above that.
They saw the value of working together across party and across House
and Senate.
Senators Booker, Merkley, and Whitehouse all understood that we could
work together. I thank them, too, for sticking with this bill and
working through differences. As a result of their efforts, the bill
gives States stronger protections, it helps reduce unnecessary testing
on animals, and it includes a number of other improvements. Their
staff--Adam Zipkin, Adrian Deveny, and Emily Enderle, among others--
were key.
A strong bipartisan vote of 15 to 5 out of the committee set us up
for action on floor. As many of you know, floor time is valuable and
hard to come by and subject to nonpertinent issues. We needed to work
to ensure the broadest possible support. We did that with Senators
Durbin and Markey, our 59th and 60th cosponsors of our legislation. I
thank them and their staff members, Jasmine Hunt and Michal Freedhoff,
for their important work to improve key aspects of the Federal program,
such as fees and implementation dates, and to ensure that we could pass
this bill through the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, has my time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it has.
Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much.
Let me just say that I am going to stay over. I thank the two
Senators. I am going to stay with Senator Inhofe and thank additional
people because I think it is that important, but we have this time
agreement, and we need to move on.
I yield to Senator Markey for 5 minutes, and then we are going to
Senator Whitehouse for 5 minutes unless there is a Republican to
intervene. Chairman Inhofe, is that correct?
Mr. INHOFE. That is right.
I would also say that I will forgo my remarks in order to give them
more time until after the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. UDALL. I yield time to--the agreement, as I understand it, is
that Senator Markey will speak for 5 minutes and Senator Whitehouse for
5 minutes and then back to the Chair.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, that is already a unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today Congress stands ready to reform the
last of the core four environmental statutes. It may do so with a
stronger bipartisan vote than any other major environmental statute in
recent American history.
For a generation, the American people have been guinea pigs in a
terrible chemical experiment. Told that all the advances in our
chemistry labs would make us healthier, happier, and safer, American
families have had to suffer with decades of a law that did nothing to
ensure that was true. That is because when the industry successfully
overturned the EPA's proposed ban on asbestos, it also rendered the
Toxic Substance Control Act all but unusable. Children shouldn't be
unwitting scientific subjects. Today we have a chance to protect them
by reforming this failed law.
As ranking Democrat on the Senate subcommittee of jurisdiction, I was
one of a handful of Members who participated in an informal conference
with the House. With Senators Udall, Boxer, and Merkley, I have
prepared a document that is intended to memorialize certain agreements
made in the bicameral negotiations that would typically have been
included in a conference report.
In our work with the House, we truly did take the best of both bills
when it came to enhancing EPA's authority to regulate chemicals.
The degree to which States will be preempted as the Federal
Government regulates chemicals has been a source of considerable debate
since this bill was first introduced. I have always been a very strong
supporter of States' rights to take actions needed to protect their own
residents. For many of us, accepting preemption of our States was a
difficult decision that we only made as we also secured increases to
the robustness of the EPA chemical safety program.
I am particularly pleased that efforts I helped lead resulted in the
assurance that Massachusetts' pending flame retardant law will not be
subjected to pause preemption and that there is a mechanism in the bill
to ensure that States' ongoing work on all chemicals can continue while
EPA is studying those chemicals.
The fact that the bill is supported by the EPA, the chemical
industry, the chamber of commerce, and the trial lawyers tells you
something. The fact that a staggering 403 Members of the House of
Representatives voted for this TSCA bill--more than the number who
agreed to support the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Safe
Drinking Water Act amendments when those laws were reauthorized--tells
you something. What it tells you is that we worked together on a
bipartisan and bicameral basis to compromise in the way Americans
expect us to.
Although there are many people who helped to create this moment, I
wish to thank some whose work over the past few months I especially
want to recognize.
I thank Bonnie Lautenberg. On behalf of her husband Frank, she was
relentless.
Senator Inhofe and his staffers, Ryan Jackson and Dimitri Karakitsos,
remained as committed to agreements they made about Senate Democratic
priorities as they were to their own commitment priorities throughout
this process. I couldn't have imagined a stronger or more constructive
partnership.
I would like to thank Senator Udall and his staffers, Drew Wallace
and Jonathan Black, whose leadership--especially during these
challenging moments--was very important.
I also thank Senator Merkley and his staff, Adrian Deveny, whose
creativity often led us to legislative breakthroughs, especially when
it came to crafting certain preemption compromises.
My own staff, Michal Freedhoff, has done little but this for 1
consecutive year. This is her 20th year on my staff. With her Ph.D. in
biochemistry--it was invaluable in negotiating with the American
Chemistry Council and all other interests.
I want to thank many other Members: Senator Boxer; Senator Whitehouse
and his staff, Bettina, along with Barbara Boxer; Senator McConnell;
Senator Reid; Senator Durbin--all central players in making sure this
legislation was here today.
I thank the spectacular and hard-working EPA team, all of whom
provided us with technical assistance and other help, often late at
night and before the dawn.
I thank Gina McCarthy, Jim Jones, Wendy Cleland-Hamnet, Ryan Wallace,
Priscilla Flattery, Kevin McLean, Brian Grant, David Berol, Laura
Vaught, Nicole Distefano, Sven-Erik Kaiser, and Tristan Brown.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MARKEY. I also thank Ryan Schmit, Don Sadowsky, and Scott
Sherlock.
I want to thank Stephenne Harding and Andrew McConville at CEQ, whose
day-to-day engagement helped us, especially in these last few weeks.
There are some outside stakeholders who worked particularly closely
with

[[Page S3515]]

my staff and with me, including Andrew Rogers, Andrew Goldberg, Richard
Denison, Joanna Slaney, Mike Walls, Rich Gold, and Scott Faber.
I have enjoyed meeting, working with, and partnering with each one of
these outstanding people over the last year.
This is a huge bill. It is a historic moment. It is going to make a
difference in the lives of millions of Americans. It is the most
significant environmental law passed in this generation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. The old law did not work. This one is going to protect
the American people.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as the song said, it has been a long,
strange trip getting here, and it has had its share of near-death
experiences, as Senator Udall is intimately aware of. I was involved
with Senator Merkley and Senator Booker in one of those near-death
experiences. If this was a rocket with stages, one of the major stages
was the Merkley-Booker-Whitehouse effort in the committee. I just
wanted to say it was the first time the three of us worked together as
a triumvirate. They were wonderful to work with. They were truly a
pleasure. We had a lot on our plates. We made about a dozen major
changes in the bill.
I want to take just a moment to thank Emily Enderle on my staff, who
was terrific through all of the negotiations and renegotiations and
counternegotiations in that stage. But this was obviously a rocket that
had many more stages than that one.
I thank Chairman Inhofe and his staff for their persistence through
all of this.
Ranking Member Boxer was relentless in trying to make this bill as
strong as she could make it through every single stage, and it is
marked by that persistence.
Senator Vitter and Senator Udall forged the original notion that this
compromise could be made to happen, and they have seen it through, so I
congratulate them.
The House had a rather different view of how this bill should look.
Between Senator Inhofe, Senator Udall, Representative Pallone, and
Representative Upton, they were able to work out a bicameral as well as
a bipartisan compromise that we all could agree to.
There are a lot of thanks involved, but I close by offering a
particular thank-you to my friend Senator Udall. In Greek mythology
there is a Titan, Prometheus, who brought fire to humankind. His
penalty for bringing fire to humankind was to be strapped to the rock
by chains and have Zeus send an eagle to eat his liver every single
day. It is an image of persisting through pain. I do have to say
Senator Vitter may have had his issues on his side--I do not know how
that looked--but I can promise on our side Tom Udall persisted through
months and months of pain, always with the view that this bill could
come to the place where this day could happen.

There are times when legislation is legislation, and there are times
when legislation has a human story behind it. This is a human story of
courage, foresight, persistence, patience, and willingness to absorb a
considerable number of slings and arrows on the way to a day when
slings and arrows are finally put down and everybody can shake hands
and agree we have, I think, a terrific victory. While there is much
credit in many places, my heart in this is with Senator Tom Udall of
New Mexico.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today, while the Nation has been focused
on the final six primaries across the Nation, the final six State
primaries across the Nation, something extraordinary is unfolding here
on the floor of the Senate. The Senate is taking the final
congressional act to send the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for
the 21st Century Act to the President's desk.
This is landmark legislation that honors the legacy of our dear
colleague Frank Lautenberg. This is landmark legislation that will make
a real difference for the health and safety of every American. This is
the first significant environmental legislation to be enacted by this
Chamber in 25 years.
This bill--this extraordinary bill--brought Democrats and Republicans
together to take action to protect public health. I have been honored
to be a part of this coalition as we have worked toward a final bill
for over a year. It hasn't been easy, but things worth doing are rarely
easy.
A huge thank-you to Senators Udall and Vitter, who cosponsored this
bill, lead the way; Senators Boxer and Inhofe, the chair and ranking
member of the Environment Committee; and Senators Markey, Whitehouse,
and Booker for their leadership and contributions throughout this
entire process.
Also, a special thank-you to the staff who worked day and night. I
know I received calls from my staff member Adrian Deveny at a variety
of hours on a variety of weekends as he worked with other staff members
to work out, iron out the challenges that remained, so a special thank-
you to Adrian Deveny.
Just a short time ago, I had the chance to speak to Bonnie
Lautenberg, Frank Lautenberg's wife. She would have loved to have been
here when we took this vote, but she is going to be down in the Capitol
next week with children and grandchildren. I hope to get a chance to
really thank her in person for her husband's leadership but also for
her leadership, her advocacy that we reached this final moment. She
said to me: It appears it takes a village to pass a bill. Well, it
does. This village was a bipartisan village. This was a bicameral
village. It has reached a successful conclusion.
In the most powerful Nation on Earth, we should not be powerless to
protect our citizens from toxic chemicals in everyday products. Today
marks a sea shift in which we finally begin to change that. For too
long, we have been unable to protect our citizens from toxic chemicals
that hurt pregnant women and young children, chemicals that hurt our
children's development, chemicals that cause cancer.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act will
tremendously improve how we regulate toxic chemicals in the United
States--those that are already in products and should no longer be used
and those new chemicals that are invented that should be thoroughly
examined before they end up in products--and make sure that toxic
chemicals don't find their way into our classrooms, into our bedrooms,
into our homes, into our workplaces. Now the Environmental Protection
Agency will have the tools and resources needed to evaluate the
dangerous chemicals and to eliminate any unsafe uses.
My introduction to this issue began with a bill in the Oregon State
Legislature about the cancer-causing flame retardants that are in our
carpets and our couches and the foam in our furniture that should not
be there. This bill gives us the ability to review that and to get rid
of those toxic chemicals.
It was enormously disturbing to me to find out that our little babies
crawling on the carpet, their noses 1 inch off the ground, were
breathing in dust from the carpet that included these cancer-causing
flame retardants. It should never have happened, but we did not have
the type of review process that protects Americans. Now we will.
So, together, a bipartisan team has run a marathon, and today we
cross the finish line. In short order, this bill will be sitting in the
Oval Office, on the President's desk, and he will be putting ink to
paper and creating this new and powerful tool for protecting the health
of American citizens. That is an enormous accomplishment.
Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Boxer, the printing cost of the
statement of additional views with respect to H.R. 2576, TSCA, will
exceed the two-page rule and cost $2,111.20.
I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer statement of additional views
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S3516]]

Detailed Analysis and Additional Views of Democratic Members on the
Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to the
Bill H.R. 2576 Entitled ``An Act to Modernize the Toxic Substances
Control Act, and for Other Purposes'' June 7, 2016

As the lead Senate Democratic negotiators on H.R. 2576,
(hereinafter referred to as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act), we submit the following
additional views that describe the intent of the negotiators
on elements of the final bill text.

1. ``Will Present''

Existing TSCA as in effect before the date of enactment of
Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
includes the authority, contained in several sections (see,
for example, section 6(a)), for EPA to take regulatory
actions related to chemical substances or mixtures if it
determines that the chemical substance or mixture ``presents
or will present'' an unreasonable risk to health or the
environment.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act includes language that removes all instances of
``will present'' from existing TSCA and the amendments
thereto. This does not reflect an intent on the part of
Congressional negotiators to remove EPA's authority to
consider future or reasonably anticipated risks in evaluating
whether a chemical substance or mixture presents an
unreasonable risk to health or the environment. In fact, a
new definition added to TSCA explicitly provides such
authority and a mandate for EPA to consider conditions of use
that are not currently known or intended but can be
anticipated to occur:
`(4) The term `conditions of use' means the circumstances,
as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical
substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be
manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or
disposed of'';

2. Mixtures

In section 6(b) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, EPA is
directed to undertake risk evaluations on chemical substances
in order to determine whether they pose an unreasonable risk
to health or the environment. Some have questioned whether
the failure to explicitly authorize risk evaluations on
mixtures calls into question EPA's authority to evaluate the
risks from chemical substances in mixtures.
The definition of 'conditions of use' described above
plainly covers all uses of a chemical substance, including
its incorporation in a mixture, and thus would clearly enable
and require, where relevant, EPA to evaluate the risks of the
chemical substance as a component of a mixture.

3. New Chemicals

While existing TSCA does not preclude EPA from reviewing
new chemicals and significant new uses following notification
by the manufacturer or processor, it does not require EPA to
do so or to reach conclusions on the potential risks of all
such chemicals before they enter the marketplace. EPA has
authority to issue orders blocking or limiting production or
other activities if it finds that available information is
inadequate and the chemical may present an unreasonable risk,
but the burden is on EPA to invoke this authority; if it
fails to do so within the 90-180 day review period,
manufacture of the new chemical can automatically commence.
This bill makes significant changes to this passive approach
under current law: For the first time, EPA will be required
to review all new chemicals and significant new uses and make
an affirmative finding regarding the chemical's or
significant new use's potential risks as a condition for
commencement of manufacture for commercial purposes and, in
the absence of a finding that the chemical or significant new
use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk,
manufacture will not be allowed to occur. If EPA finds that
it lacks sufficient information to evaluate the chemical's or
significant new use's risks or that the chemical or
significant new use does or may present an unreasonable risk,
it is obligated to issue an order or rule that precludes
market entry or imposes conditions sufficient to prevent an
unreasonable risk. EPA can also require additional testing.
Only chemicals and significant new uses that EPA finds are
not likely to present an unreasonable risk can enter
production without restriction. This affirmative approach to
better ensuring the safety of new chemicals entering the
market is essential to restoring the public's confidence in
our chemical safety system.

4. Unreasonable Risk

TSCA as in effect before the date of enactment of the Frank
R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 2lst Century Act
authorized EPA to regulate chemical substances if it
determined that the chemical substance ``presents or will
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment.'' In its decision in Corrosion Proof Fittings vs
EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit overturned EPA's
proposed ban on asbestos, in part because it believed that
``In evaluating what is ``unreasonable,'' the EPA is
required to consider the costs of any proposed actions and to
``carry out this chapter in a reasonable and prudent manner
[after considering] the environmental, economic, and social
impact of any action.'' 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2601(c).
As the District of Columbia Circuit stated when evaluating
similar language governing the Federal Hazardous Substances
Act, ``[t]he requirement that the risk be `unreasonable'
necessarily involves a balancing test like that familiar in
tort law: The regulation may issue if the severity of the
injury that may result from the product, factored by the
likelihood of the injury, offsets the harm the regulation
itself imposes upon manufacturers and consumers.'' Forester
v. CPSC, 559 F.2d 774 789 (D.C.Cir.1977). We have quoted this
language approvingly when evaluating other statutes using
similar language. See, e.g., Aqua Slide, 569 F.2d at 839.''
The Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century
Act clearly rejects that approach to determining what
``unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment''
means, by adding text that directs EPA to determine whether
such risks exist ``without consideration of costs or other
nonrisk factors'' and, if they do, to promulgate a rule that
ensures ``that the chemical substance no longer presents such
risk.'' In this manner, Congress has ensured that when EPA
evaluates a chemical to determine whether it poses an
unreasonable risk to health or the environment and regulates
the chemical if it does, the Agency may not apply the sort of
``balancing test'' described above.

5. Prioritization

Section 6(b) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, defines high-
priority chemical substances and low-priority chemical
substances as follows:
``(i) HIGH-PRIORITY SUBSTANCES.--The Administrator shall
designate as a high-priority substance a chemical substance
that the Administrator concludes, without consideration of
costs or other nonrisk factors, may present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or environment because of a
potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the
conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified
as relevant by the Administrator.
``(ii) LOW-PRIORITY SUBSTANCES.--The Administrator shall
designate a chemical substance as a low-priority substance if
the Administrator concludes, based on information sufficient
to establish, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk
factors, that such substance does not meet the standard
identified in clause (i) for designating a chemical substance
a high-priority substance.''
The direction to EPA for the designation of low-priority
substances is of note in that it requires such designations
to be made only when there is ``information sufficient to
establish'' that the standard for designating a substance as
a high-priority substance is not met. Clear authority is
provided under section 4(a)(2)(B), as created in the Frank R
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, to
enable EPA to obtain the information needed to prioritize
chemicals for which information is initially insufficient.
The bill text also goes on to state that if ``the information
available to the Administrator at the end of such an
extension [for testing of a chemical substance in order to
determine its priority designation] remains insufficient to
enable the designation of the chemical substance as a low-
priority substance, the Administrator shall designate the
chemical substance as a high-priority substance.''
These provisions are intended to ensure that the only
chemicals to be designated low-priority are those for which
EPA both has sufficient information and, based on that
information, affirmatively concludes that the substance does
not warrant a finding that it may present an unreasonable
risk.

6. Industry Requested Chemicals

Sec. 6(b)(4)(E) sets the percentage of risk evaluations
that the Administrator shall conduct at industry's request at
between 25 percent (if enough requests are submitted) and 50
percent. The Administrator should set up a system to ensure
that those percentages are met and not exceeded in each
fiscal year. An informal effort that simply takes requests as
they come in and hopes that the percentages will work out
does not meet the requirement that the Administrator
``ensure'' that the percentages be met. Also, clause (E)(ii)
makes clear that industry requests for risk evaluations
``shall be'' subject to fees. Therefore, if at any point the
fees imposed by the Frank Lautenberg Act (which are subject
to a termination in section 26(b)(6)) are allowed to lapse,
industry's opportunity to seek risk evaluations will also
lapse and the minimum 25 percent requirement will not apply.

7. Pace of and long-term goal for EPA safety reviews of existing
chemicals

Existing TSCA grandfathered in tens of thousands of
chemicals to the inventory without requiring any review of
their safety. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the
21st Century Act sets in motion a process under which EPA
will for the first time systematically review the safety of
chemicals in active commerce. While this will take many
years, the goal of the legislation is to ensure that all
chemicals on the market get such a review. The initial
targets for numbers of reviews are relatively low, reflecting
current EPA capacity and resources. These targets represent
floors, not ceilings, and Senate Democratic negotiators
expect that as EPA begins to collect fees, gets procedures
established and gains experience, these targets can be
exceeded in furtherance of the legislation's goals.

[[Page S3517]]

8. ``Maximum'' extent practicable

Several sections of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety
for the 21st Century Act include direction to EPA to take
certain actions to ``the extent practicable'', in contrast to
language in S 697 as reported by the Senate that actions be
taken to ``the maximum extent practicable.'' During House-
Senate negotiations on the bill, Senate negotiators were
informed that House Legislative Counsel believed the terms
``extent practicable'' and ``maximum extent practicable'' are
synonymous, and ultimately Congress agreed to include
``extent practicable'' in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act with the expectation that no
change in meaning from S 697 as reported by the Senate be
inferred from that agreement.

9. Cost considerations in rulemaking

Section 6(c)(2) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act lists
what is required in analysis intended to support an EPA rule
for a chemical substance or mixture:
``(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR RULE.--``(A) STATEMENT OF EFFECTS.--
In proposing and promulgating a rule under subsection (a)
with respect to a chemical substance or mixture, the
Administrator shall consider and publish a statement based on
reasonably available information with respect to--
``(i) the effects of the chemical substance or mixture on
health and the magnitude of the exposure of human beings to
the chemical substance or mixture;
``(ii) the effects of the chemical substance or mixture on
the environment and the magnitude of the exposure of the
environment to such substance or mixture;
``(iii) the benefits of the chemical substance or mixture
for various uses; and
``(iv) the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences
of the rule, including consideration of--
``(I) the likely effect of the rule on the national
economy, small business, technological innovation, the
environment, and public health;
``(II) the costs and benefits of the proposed and final
regulatory action and of the 1 or more primary alternative
regulatory actions considered by the Administrator; and
``(III) the cost effectiveness of the proposed regulatory
action and of the 1 or more primary alternative regulatory
actions considered by the Administrator.
The language above specifies the information on effects,
exposures and costs that EPA is to consider in determining
how to regulate a chemical substance that presents an
unreasonable risk as determined in EPA's risk evaluation.
Senate Democratic negotiators clarify that sections
6(c)(2)(A)(i) and (ii) do not require EPA to conduct a second
risk evaluation-like analysis to identify the specified
information, but rather, can satisfy these requirements on
the basis of the conclusions regarding the chemical's health
and environmental effects and exposures in the risk
evaluation itself.
The scope of the statement EPA is required to prepare under
clauses (i)-(iv) is bounded in two important respects. First,
it is to be based on information reasonably available to EPA,
and hence does not require new information collection or
development. Second, EPA's consideration of costs and
benefits and cost-effectiveness is limited to the
requirements of the rule itself and the 1 or more ``primary''
alternatives it considered, not every possible alternative.
The role of the statement required under subparagraph
(c)(2)(A) in selecting the restrictions to include in its
rule is delineated in subparagraph (c)(2)(B). Under this
provision, EPA must ``factor in'' the considerations
described in the statement ``to the extent practicable'' and
``in accordance with subsection (a).'' As revised, subsection
(a) deletes the paralyzing ``least burdensome'' requirement
in the existing law and instructs that EPA's rule must ensure
that the chemical substance or mixture ``no longer
presents''' the unreasonable risk identified in the risk
evaluation. Thus, it is clear that the considerations in the
statement required under subparagraph (c)(2)(A) do not
require EPA to demonstrate benefits outweigh costs, to
definitively determine or select the least-cost alternative,
or to select an option that is demonstrably cost-effective or
is the least burdensome adequately protective option. Rather,
it requires only that EPA take into account the specified
considerations in deciding among restrictions to impose,
which must be sufficient to ensure that the subject chemical
substance no longer presents the unreasonable risk EPA has
identified. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the
21st Century Act clearly rejects the regulatory approach and
framework that led to the failed asbestos ban and phase-out
rule of 1989 in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA 947 F.2d 1201
(5th Cir. 1991).

10. ``Minimum'' labeling requirements

Section 6(a) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, ensures that the
requirements EPA can impose to address an unreasonable risk
to health or the environment include requiring ``clear and
adequate minimum'' warnings. The addition of the word
``minimum'' was intended to avoid the sort of litigation that
was undertaken in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), when
a plaintiff won a Supreme Court decision after alleging that
the harm she suffered from a drug that had been labeled in
accordance with FDA requirements had nevertheless been
inadequately labeled under Vermont law. This ensures that
manufacturers or processors of chemical substances and
mixtures can always take additional measures, if in the
interest of protecting health and the environment, it would
be reasonable to do so.

11. Critical Use Exemptions

Section 6(g) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, authorizes EPA to
exempt specific conditions of use from otherwise applicable
section 6(a) rule requirements, if EPA makes specified
findings. Section 6(g)(4) in turn requires EPA to include in
such an exemption conditions that are ``necessary to protect
health and the environment while achieving the purposes of
the exemption.'' It is Congress' intent that the conditions
EPA imposes will protect health and the environment to the
extent feasible, recognizing that, by its nature, an
exemption will allow for activities that present some degree
of unreasonable risk.

12. Regulatory Compliance

Several sections of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety
for the 21st Century Act clarify the Congressional intent
that compliance with federal EPA standards, rules or other
requirements shall not preclude liability in circumstances
where a reasonable manufacturer or processor or distributor
of a chemical substance or mixture could or should have taken
additional measures or precautions in the interest of
protecting public health and the environment.

13. TSCA as the Primary Statute for the Regulation of Toxic Substances

EPA's authorities and duties under section 6 of TSCA have
been significantly expanded under the Frank R. Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, now including
comprehensive deadlines and throughput expectations for
chemical prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk
management. The interagency referral process and the intra-
agency consideration process established under Section 9 of
existing TSCA must now be regarded in a different light since
TSCA can no longer be construed as a ``gap-filler'' statutory
authority of last resort. The changes in section 9 are
consistent with this recognition and do not conflict with the
fundamental expectation that, where EPA concludes that a
chemical presents an unreasonable risk, the Agency should act
in a timely manner to ensure that the chemical substance no
longer presents such risk. Thus, once EPA has reached this
conclusion, Section 9(a) is not intended to supersede or
modify the Agency's obligations under Sections 6(a) or 7 to
address risks from activities involving the chemical
substance, except as expressly identified in a section 9(a)
referral for regulation by another agency which EPA believes
has sufficient authority to eliminate the risk and where the
agency acts in a timely and effective manner to do so.
Regarding EPA's consideration of whether to use non-TSCA
EPA authorities in order to address unreasonable chemical
risks identified under TSCA, the new section 9(b)(2) merely
consolidates existing language which was previously split
between section 6(c) and section 9(b). It only applies where
the Administrator has already determined that a risk to
health or the environment associated with a chemical
substance or mixture could be eliminated or reduced to a
sufficient extent by additional actions taken under other EPA
authorities. It allows the Administrator substantial
discretion to use TSCA nonetheless, and it certainly does not
reflect that TSCA is an authority of last resort in such
cases. Importantly, the provision adds a new qualification,
not in original TSCA, that the required considerations are to
be ``based on information reasonably available to the
Administrator'' to ensure that such considerations do not
require additional information to be collected or developed.
Furthermore, none of these revisions were intended to alter
the clear intent of Congress, reflected in the original
legislative history of TSCA, that these decisions would be
completely discretionary with the Administrator and not
subject to judicial review in any manner.

14. Disclosure of Confidential Business Information

S. 697 as passed by the Senate included several
requirements as amendments to sections 8 and 14 of existing
TSCA that direct EPA to ``promptly'' make confidential
business information public when it determines that
protections against disclosure of such information should no
longer apply. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the
21st Century Act instead directs EPA to remove the
protections against disclosure when it determines that they
should no longer apply. Because EPA informed Senate
negotiators that its practice is to promptly make public
information that is no longer protected against disclosure,
we see no difference or distinction in meaning between the
language in S. 697 as passed and the Frank R. Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, and expect EPA to
continue its current practice of affirmatively making public
information that is not or no longer protected from
disclosure as expeditiously as possible.
Subsection 14(d)(9) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, further
clarifies the Congressional intent that any information
required pursuant to discovery, subpoena, court order, or any
other judicial process is always allowable and discoverable
under State and Federal law, and not protected from
disclosure.

[[Page S3518]]

15. Chemical Identity

Section 14(b)(2) of the bill retains TSCA's provision
making clear that information from health and safety studies
is not protected from disclosure. It also retains TSCA's two
existing exceptions from disclosure of information from
health and safety studies: for information where disclosure
would disclose either how a chemical is manufactured or
processed or the portion a chemical comprises in a mixture. A
clarification has been added to the provision to note
explicitly that the specific identity of a chemical is among
the types of information that need not be disclosed, when
disclosing health and safety information, if doing so would
also disclose how a chemical is made or the portion a
chemical comprises in a mixture. This clarification does not
signal any Congressional intent to alter the meaning of the
provision, only to clarify its intent.

16. ``Requirements'''

Subsection 5(i)(2) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act clarifies
the Congressional intent to ensure that state requirements,
including legal causes of action arising under statutory or
common law, are not preempted or limited in any way by EPA
action or inaction on a chemical substance.
Subsection 6(j) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,
clarifies the Congressional intent to ensure that state
requirements, including legal causes of action arising under
statutory or common law, are not preempted or limited in any
way by EPA action or inaction on a chemical substance.

17. State-Federal Relationship

Sections 18(a)(1)(B) and 18(b)(1) of TSCA, as amended by
the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century
Act, refer to circumstances under which a state may not
establish or continue to enforce a ``statute, criminal
penalty, or administrative action'' on a chemical substance.
Section 18(b)(2) states that ``this subsection does not
restrict the authority of a State or political subdivision of
a State to continue to enforce any statute enacted, criminal
penalty assessed, or administrative action taken''. In an
email transmitted by Senate Republican negotiators at 11:45
AM on May 23, 2016, the Senate requested that House
Legislative Counsel delete the word ``assessed,'' but this
change was not made in advance of the 12 PM deadline to file
the bill text with the House Rules Committee. The Senate's
clear intent was not to change or in any way limit the
meaning of the phrase ``criminal penalty'' in section
18(b)(2).
Section 18(d)(I) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,
references ``risk evaluations''' on chemical substances that
may be conducted by states or political subdivisions of
states with the clear intent to describe the circumstances in
which such efforts would not be preempted by federal action.
The term ``Risk Evaluation'' may not be universally utilized
in every state or political subdivision of a state, but
researching each analogous term used in each state or
political subdivision of a state in order to explicitly list
it was neither realistic nor possible. The use of this term
is not intended to be in any way limiting.
Section 18(d)(1)(A)(ii) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, fully
preserves the authority of states or political subdivisions
of states to impose ``information obligation'' requirements
on manufacturers or processors with respect to chemicals they
produce or use. The provision cites examples of such
obligations: reporting and monitoring or ``other information
obligations.'' These may include, but are not limited to,
state requirements related to information, such as companies'
obligations to disclose use information, to provide warnings
or to label products or chemicals with certain information
regarding risks and recommended actions to reduce exposure or
environmental release.
Section 18(d)(2) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,
specifies that nothing in this section shall modify the
preemptive effect of any prior rule or order by the
Administrator prior to the effective date, responding to
concerns that prior EPA action on substances such as
polychlorinated biphenyls would be potentially immunized from
liability for injury or harm.
Section 18(e) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,
grandfathers existing and enacted state laws and regulatory
actions, and requirements imposed now or in the future under
the authority of state laws that were in effect on August 31,
2003.
Section 18(f) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, provides
discretionary and mandatory waivers which exempt regulatory
action by states and their political subdivisions from any
federal preemptive effect. In particular, Subsection
18(f)(2)(B) specifies that, where requested, EPA shall grant
a waiver from preemption under subsection (b) upon the
enactment of any statute, or the proposal or completion of a
preliminary administrative action, with the intent of
prohibiting or otherwise restricting a chemical substance or
mixture, provided these actions occur during the 18-month
period after EPA initiates the prioritization process and
before EPA publishes the scope of the risk evaluation for the
chemical substance (which cannot be less than 12 months after
EPA initiates the prioritization process).
Section 18(g) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, specifies that no
preemption of any common law or statutory causes of action
for civil relief or criminal conduct shall occur, and that
nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as dispositive or
otherwise limiting any civil action or other claim for
relief. This section also clarifies the Congressional intent
to ensure that state requirements, including legal causes of
action arising under statutory or common law, are not
preempted or limited in any way by EPA action or inaction on
a chemical substance. This section further clarifies
Congress' intent that no express, implied, or actual conflict
exists between any federal regulatory action and any state,
federal, or maritime tort action, responding to the perceived
conflict contemplated in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.,
529 U.S. 861 (2000) and its progeny.

18. Fees

Fees under section 26(b), as amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, are
authorized to be collected so that 25% of EPA's overall costs
to carry out section 4, 5, and 6, and to collect, process,
review, provide access to and protect from disclosure
information, are defrayed, subject to a $25,000,000 cap (that
itself can be adjusted for inflation or if it no longer
provides 25% of EPA's costs listed above). While the
collection of fees is tied to the submission of particular
information under sections 4 and 5 or the manufacturing or
processing of a particular chemical substance undergoing a
risk evaluation under section 6, in general the use of these
fees is not limited to defraying the cost of the action that
was the basis for payment of the fee. The exception to this
general principle is for fees to defray the cost of
conducting manufacturer requested risk evaluations, which are
independent of the $25 million cap or 25% limit. These must
be spent on the particular risk evaluation that was the basis
for payment of the fee. This limitation applies only to the
fee collected for the purpose of conducting the risk
evaluation and does not prevent EPA from collecting further
fees from such persons for other purposes for which payment
of fees are authorized under the section. For example, if a
manufacturer-requested risk evaluation later leads to risk
management action, EPA may assign further fees to
manufacturers and processors of that substance, subject to
the $25,000,000 cap and the requirement to not exceed 25% of
overall program costs for carrying out sections 4, 5, and 6,
and to collect, process, review, provide access to and
protect from disclosure information.
We also note that some have raised the possibility that
section 26(b)(4)(B)(i)(I), as amended by the Frank R
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, could be
read to exclude the cost of risk evaluations, other than
industry-requested risk evaluations, from the costs that can
be covered by fees. This was not the intent and is not
consistent with the statutory language. As clearly indicated
in section 26(b)(1), the amended law provides that
manufacturers and processors of chemicals subject to risk
evaluations be subject to fees, and that fees be collected to
defray the cost of administering sections 4, 5, and 6, and of
collecting, processing, reviewing and providing access to and
protecting from disclosure information. Risk evaluations are
a central element of section 6. And as demonstrated by
section 6(b)(4)(F)(i), the intent of the bill is that the
EPA-initiated risk evaluations be defrayed at the 25% level
(subject to the $25,000,000 cap), in contrast to the
industry-initiated evaluations, which are funded at the 50%
or 100% level. The final citation in section 26(b)(4)(B)(i)
should be read as section 6(b)(4)(C)(ii), as it is in section
6(b)(4)(F)(i), not to section 6(b) generally.

19. Scientific Standards

The term ``weight of evidence'' refers to a systematic
review method that uses a pre-established protocol to
comprehensively, objectively, transparently, and
consistently, identify and evaluate each stream of evidence,
including strengths, limitations, and relevance of each study
and to integrate evidence as necessary and appropriate based
upon strengths, limitations, and relevance.
This requirement is not intended to prevent the Agency from
considering academic studies, or any other category of study.
We expect that when EPA makes a weight of the evidence
decision it will fully describe its use and methods.

20. Partial Risk Evaluations

Section 26(1)(4) of TSCA, as amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, states
``(4) CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES WITH COMPLETED RISK
ASSESSMENTS.--With respect to a chemical substance listed in
the 2014 update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical
Assessments for which the Administrator has published a
completed risk assessment prior to the date of enactment of
the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century
Act, the Administrator may publish proposed and final rules
under section 6(a) that are consistent with the scope of the
completed risk assessment for the chemical substance and
consistent with other applicable requirements of section 6.''
EPA has completed risk assessments on TCE, NMP, and MC, but
has not yet proposed

[[Page S3519]]

or finalized section 6(a) rules to address the risks that
were identified. The risk assessments for these chemicals
were not conducted across all conditions of use. During the
bi-cameral negotiations, EPA expressed the view that, rather
than reexamine and perhaps broaden the scope of these
assessments, it is better to proceed with proposed and final
rules on the covered chemicals to avoid any delay in the
imposition of important public health protections that are
known to be needed. Congress shared these concerns. The
language House-Senate negotiators included above is intended
to allow EPA to proceed with the regulation of these
substances if the scope of the proposed and final rules is
consistent with the scope of the risk assessments conducted
on these substances.

21. SNURs for Articles

Section 5(a)(5) addresses the application of significant
new use rules (SNURs) to articles or categories of articles
containing substances of concern. It provides that in
promulgating such SNURs, EPA must make ``an affirmative
finding . . . . that the reasonable potential for exposure to
the chemical substance through the article or category of
articles subject to the rule justifies notification.'' This
language clarifies that potential exposure is a relevant
factor in applying SNURs to articles. Exposure is a relevant
factor in identifying other significant new uses of a
chemical substance as well. It is not intended to require EPA
to conduct an exposure assessment or provide evidence that
exposure to the substance through the article or category of
articles will in fact occur. Rather, since the goal of SNURs
is to bring to EPA's attention and enable it to evaluate uses
of chemicals that could present unreasonable risks, a
reasonable expectation of possible exposure based on the
nature of the substance or the potential uses of the article
or category of articles will be sufficient to ``warrant
notification.'' EPA has successfully used the SNUR authority
in the existing law to provide for scrutiny of imported
articles (many of which are widely used consumer products)
that contain unsafe chemicals that have been restricted or
discontinued in the U.S. and it's critical that SNURs
continue to perform this important public health function
under the amended law.

22. Compliance Deadlines

The amended law expands on existing section 6(d) by
providing that rules under section 6 must include ``mandatory
compliance dates.'' These dates can vary somewhat with the
type of restriction being imposed but, in general, call for
compliance deadlines that ``shall be as soon as practicable,
but not later than 5 years after the promulgation of the
rule.'' While EPA could in unusual circumstances delay
compliance for as long as five years, this should be the
exception and not the norm. To realize the risk reduction
benefits of the rule, it is expected that compliance
deadlines will be as soon as practicable after the rule's
effective date as directed in new paragraph 6(d)(1).
Senator Barbara Boxer, Ranking Member, Environment and
Public Works Committee.
Senator Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight,
Environment and Public Works Committee, and cosponsor,
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act.
Senator Tom Udall, lead Democratic author and sponsor,
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act.
Senator Jeffrey A. Merkley, cosponsor, Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
Mr. MERKLEY. I yield the floor.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I know that everyone here shares a
desire to fix our chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control
Act, and I appreciate the years of hard work that my colleagues,
starting with the late Senator from New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg, put
in to try to make this bill the best bipartisan compromise it could be.
So many parts of this bill strengthen the standards and review
process for chemicals, and I am pleased that we will finally be able to
effectively regulate chemicals on a Federal level.
However, there is one part of the bill that still concerns me: the
preemption of State laws.
Right now, a number of States, including New York, have taken the
lead in chemical safety and have set standards for their own citizens
that are higher than the standards set by the EPA.
These State actions have brought the chemical companies to the table
to finally create a strong federal system for reviewing chemicals for
safety.
But this bill would significantly limit the rights of individual
States to set their own chemical safety standards from this day
forward.
It would prevent a State from regulating or enforcing regulations on
a chemical if the EPA is studying but has not yet ruled on the safety
of that chemical.
But the EPA's review process can take far longer than a State's
review process.
As a result, if a Governor or a State legislature wanted to develop
their own rules to protect their citizens from a particular chemical
that they knew was toxic and posing an imminent threat, their hands
would be tied because of this law, and it would be left to the EPA to
determine whether the State's science is valid.
Why would we take away this right from our States?
The only recourse for States is a burdensome waiver process that does
not guarantee that a State will prevail in obtaining a waiver to
continue to protect the health of its families. That is not enough.
When it comes to protecting public health, I firmly believe that
Federal laws should set a floor, not a ceiling, and States should
continue to have the right to protect their citizens from toxic
chemicals--especially while they wait for the EPA to complete their own
lengthy studies.
No State should be prevented from acting to protect the health and
safety of its people when the Federal Government fails to act.
No State should be prevented from banning a dangerous chemical,
simply because the EPA is taking time to review the substance.
So despite all the hard work of my colleagues and the progress that
has been made, I cannot vote to undermine my State's ability to protect
our constituents, and I will vote no on this bill.
Thank you.

congressional intent behind specific provisions of the bill

Mr. INHOFE. Senator Vitter and I rise today to discuss a few
provisions in the bill with the desire of clarifying what the
Congressional intent was behind specific provisions of the legislation.
Senator Vitter, I would like to start with a question to you on the
purpose of the term ``conditions of use'' and how that term is supposed
to be applied by EPA in risk evaluations?
Mr. VITTER. Thank you Senator Inhofe. There are many important
provisions of this law and I think clarifying what Congress intended is
very important to ensure the legislative intent is understood and
followed. To specifically address your first question, the term
``conditions of use'' is specifically defined as `the circumstances, as
determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is
intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed,
distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.' The conditions of use
of a chemical substance drive the potential for exposure to a chemical.
Exposure potential, when integrated with the hazard potential of a
chemical, determines a chemical's potential for risk. So EPA's
understanding of a chemical's conditions of use--and importantly it is
the circumstances `the Administrator' determines--will be critical to
EPA's final determination of whether a chemical is safe or presents an
unreasonable risk that must be controlled. Finally, to address your
question of how this is supposed to be applied by EPA in risk
evaluations, it is important to note that many TSCA chemicals have
multiple uses--industrial, commercial and consumer uses. EPA has
identified subcategories of chemical uses for regular chemical
reporting requirements, so the Agency is well aware that some
categories of uses pose greater potential for exposure than others and
that the risks from many categories of uses are deemed negligible or
already well controlled. The language of the compromise makes clear
that EPA has to make a determination on all conditions of use
considered in the scope but the Agency is given the discretion to
determine the conditions of use that the Agency will address in its
evaluation of the priority chemical. This assures that the Agency's
focus on priority chemicals is on conditions of use that raise the
greatest potential for risk. This also assures that the Agency can
effectively assess and control priority chemicals and meet the new
law's strict deadlines. Without this discretion to focus chemical risk
assessments on certain conditions of use, the Agency's job would be
more difficult.
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. That response raised an
interesting follow up question I would like

[[Page S3520]]

to ask. If EPA's final Section 6(a) risk management rule includes a
restriction or prohibition on some of the conditions of use identified
in EPA's scope of the risk evaluation, but not all of them, is it final
agency action as to those other conditions of use?
Mr. VITTER. That is a very important question and the clear intent of
Congress is the answer is yes. This is because, to be legally
sufficient according to EPA's own technical assistance, EPA's Section
6(a) rule must ensure that the chemical substance or mixture no longer
presents an unreasonable risk. A Section 6(i) order, determining that a
chemical substance does not present an unreasonable risk under
conditions of use, is similarly final Agency action applicable to all
those conditions of use that were identified in the scope of EPA's risk
evaluation on the chemical substance. To be clear, every condition of
use identified by the Administrator in the scope of the risk evaluation
must, and will be either found to present or not present an
unreasonable risk.
Mr. Inhofe, this brings me to a question on the testing EPA has the
authority require manufacturers to conduct under this compromise. One
of the major flaws in TSCA is the so-called `catch 22' under which EPA
cannot require testing of chemicals without first making a finding that
the chemical may present an unreasonable risk. In TSCA's history, EPA
has been able to make that finding only for about 200 chemicals. Does
the compromise remedy that provision of TSCA?
Mr. INHOFE. It is clear that the compromise directs EPA to
systematically evaluate more chemicals than ever before. To help the
Agency meet that objective, the compromise does two things. First, EPA
can issue a test rule or order if it finds that a chemical substance
may present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. In
this case, an EPA order would be a final agency action subject to
judicial review. EPA would be well-advised to consider the practice of
issuing a `statement of need' similar to that required under section
4(a)(3) when using this authority.
The section also provides EPA discretionary authority to require
testing--by rule, order or consent agreement--when EPA determines that
new information is necessary to review a pre-manufacture notice under
section 5, to conduct a risk evaluation under section 6, or to
implement rules or orders under those sections. The compromise also
recognizes that EPA may need new information to prioritize a chemical
substance for review, to assess certain exports, and at the request of
another federal agency. To use this discretionary order authority, EPA
must issue a `statement of need' that explains the need for new
testing/exposure information. It must describe how available
information has informed the decision to require new information,
whether vertebrate animal testing is needed, and why an order is
preferred to a rule.
Section 4 of the compromise also requires EPA to use `tiered'
screening and testing processes. This means EPA must require less
expensive, less complex screening tests to determine whether higher
level testing is required. This is an efficient approach to testing
chemicals that is based on EPA experience in other testing programs
Tiered testing will also help assure that EPA is meeting the objective
to minimize animal testing that is set out in the compromise.
Finally, section 4 prohibits the creation of a `minimum information
requirement' for the prioritization of chemicals. That is a very
important provision that should be applied to any and all testing by
the Agency regardless of which authority it uses.
Senator Vitter, in addition to new testing authorities the bill also
makes changes to TSCA in the new chemicals program under section 5
which has been largely viewed as one of the major strengths of existing
law. It has been credited with spurring innovation in chemistry used
for new products and technologies throughout the value chain. The
industry we're regulating in TSCA is highly innovative: 17 percent of
all US patents are chemistry or chemistry related. Clearly Congress has
an interest in preserving the economic engine that is the business of
U.S. chemistry, while ensuring that EPA appropriately reviews new
chemical substances and significant new uses. How does the compromise
balance these interests?
Mr. VITTER. Protecting innovation and not materially altering the new
chemicals process was a critical part of the final compromise. Every
effort was made to ensure EPA has the right tools to review new
chemical substances but the amendments to this section were intended to
conform closely with EPA's current practice and maintain the Agency's
timely reviews that allow substances to market within the statutory
deadlines. First, the compromise retains the 90-day review period for
EPA to make a risk-based decision on a new chemical, without
consideration of costs or other non-risk factors. Second, when EPA does
not have the information sufficient for the evaluation of a new
chemical, or when EPA determines that a new chemical may present an
unreasonable risk, the compromise requires EPA regulate the new
chemical to the extent necessary to protect against unreasonable risk.
Once sufficient information is available, of course, EPA must make a
decision. These requirements largely reflect EPA's practice today,
under which EPA can allow the new chemical on the market but with
limits. Finally, if EPA determines that a new chemical is not likely to
present an unreasonable risk, EPA must make a statement to that effect
before the end of the 90 day period. This provision ensures that
chemicals considered not likely to pose an unreasonable risk are not
delayed in getting to market.

Importantly, EPA would not stop reviewing new chemical notices while
it develops any policies, procedures and guidance needed to implement
these new provisions in Section 5. The compromise is very clear: EPA
should not stop or slow its review of new chemicals while it develops
any needed new policies procedures or guidance for Section 5. Also by
amending Section 5 to require EPA make an affirmative finding before
manufacturing or processing of a substance may commence, Congress did
not intend to trigger the requirements of any other environmental laws.
This again maintains the consistency with how EPA currently administers
the new chemicals program under existing law.
Senator Inhofe, this leads me to another question on a provision that
is rather technical and has been misunderstood by many and that is
nomenclature. After the TSCA Inventory was established in 1979,
questions arose about the appropriate chemical `nomenclature' to be
used to list these chemical substances. EPA addressed many of these
questions in a series of guidance documents. The compromise includes a
provision on nomenclature. What is this provision intended to do?
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. These provision are very
important to many major domestic producers including manufacturers of
products like glass, steel, cement, along with domestic energy
producers across the country. The chemical nomenclature provision in
section 8 of the compromise addresses several issues critical to the
efficient functioning of the new chemical regulatory framework.
For the purposes of the TSCA Inventory, a single, defined molecule is
simple to name. For example, ethanol is a Class 1 chemical on the TSCA
Inventory. Its identity does not depend on how it is made. Since one
ethanol is chemically the same as another ethanol, a new producer of
ethanol can use the existing ethanol chemical listed on the TSCA
Inventory. For other substances known as Class 2 chemicals,
nomenclature is more complex. For those substances, the name of the
substance typically includes either--or both--The source material and
the process used to make it. The compromise requires EPA to maintain
the Class 2 nomenclature system, as well as certain nomenclature
conventions in widespread use since the early days of TSCA.
The compromise also directs EPA to continue to recognize the
individual members of categories of chemical substances as being on the
TSCA inventory. The individual members of these categories are defined
in inventory descriptions developed by EPA. In addition, the compromise
permits manufacturers or processors to request that EPA recognize a
chemical substance

[[Page S3521]]

currently identified on the TSCA Inventory under multiple nomenclatures
as `equivalents.'
Importantly, the equivalency provision relates only to chemical
substances that are already on the TSCA Inventory. Although the
equivalency provision specifically references substances that have
Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers, EPA could usefully apply an
equivalency approach to substances on the Inventory that do not have
CAS numbers as well, such as for naturally-occurring substances.
Now, Senator Vitter, once a chemical is on the inventory, information
about the substance that is provided to EPA often contains sensitive
proprietary elements that need protecting. There has been a significant
debate in recent years regarding the protection from public disclosure
of a confidential chemical identity provided in a health and safety
study under TSCA section 14(b). Although new section 14(b) is
substantially similar to the existing statute, what is the intent
behind the additional language related to formulas?
Mr. VITTER. It was the Congressional intent of the legation to
balance the need to ensure public access to health and safety studies
with the need to protect from public disclosure valuable confidential
business information (CBI) and trade secrets that are already exempt
from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Striking the appropriate balance between public disclosure on the one
hand, and the protection of a company's valuable intellectual property
rights embodied in CBI and trade secrets on the other hand, is
essential to better informing the public regarding decisions by
regulatory authorities with respect to chemical, while encouraging
innovation and economic competitiveness.
The compromise retains the language of existing section 14(b) to make
clear that the Administrator is not prohibited from disclosing health
and safety studies, but that certain types of CBI and trade secrets
disclosed within health and safety studies must always be protected
from disclosure. The new, additional language in this section is
intended to clarify that confidential chemical identities--which
includes chemical names, formulas and structures--may themselves reveal
CBI or trade secret process information. In such cases, the
confidential chemical identity must always be protected from
disclosure. The new language is not limiting; it makes clear that any
other information that would reveal proprietary or trade secret
processes is similarly protected. In other cases involving confidential
chemical identities, EPA should continue to strike an appropriate
balance between protection of proprietary CBI or trade secrets, and
ensuring public access to health and safety information.
In addition to the protection of confidential information, another
critically important provision in the deal was preemption. Senator
Inhofe could you describe how the compromise address the relationship
between State governments and the Federal government?
Mr. INHOFE. As we all recognize, the preemption section of this bill
was the most contentious issue of the negotiations as well as the most
important linchpin in the final deal. The compromise includes several
notable provisions. First, it is clear that when a chemical has
undergone a risk evaluation and determined to pose no unreasonable
risk, any state chemical management action to restrict or regulate the
substance is preempted. This outcome furthers Congress's legislative
objective of achieving uniform, risk-based chemical management
nationally in a manner that supports robust national commerce. Federal
determinations reached after the risk evaluation process that a
chemical presents no significant risk in a particular use should be
viewed as determinative and not subject to different interpretations on
a state-by-state or locality-by-locality basis. Further, under the new
legislation, EPA will make decisions based on conditions of use, and
must consider various conditions of use, so there could be
circumstances where EPA determines that a chemical does not present an
unreasonable risk in certain uses, but does in others. Preemption for
no significant risk determinations would apply as these determinations
are made on a use-by-use basis.

Second, to promote the engagement of all stakeholders in the risk
evaluation process--including State governments--thee compromise
creates a temporary preemption period for identified high priority
chemicals moving through EPA's risk evaluation process. The period only
runs from the time EPA defines the scope of the evaluation to the time
that EPA finishes the evaluation, or the agency deadline runs out. It
does not apply to the first 10 TSCA Work Plan chemicals the EPA
reviews, and it does not apply to manufacturer-requested risk
evaluations. It does apply to any and all other chemical substances EPA
choses to review through a risk evaluation. States with compelling
circumstances can request and be granted a vysaiver by EPA. These
waiver and scope limitations ensure that the piause has its intended
effect--to ensure that there is one, comprehensive, nationally-led risk
evaluation occurring at a time, allowing EPA and affected manufacturers
to focus on and complete the work on a timely basis, and to ensure a
uniform and consistent federal approach to risk evaluation and risk
management.
Senator Vitter, despite the fact that this law regulates products in
commerce and Congress has the authority and Constitutional duty to
protect interstate commerce, efforts were made to give States a role in
this process, and even to get waivers from preemption where State
actions are adequately justified. It should be noted that nothing
precludes State action on chemical substances that are not the subject
of an EPA risk evaluation or decision. There is also nothing in the
compromise that precludes states from offering opinions, advice, or
comment during the risk evaluation process. The risk evaluation process
anticipates numerous opportunities for public comment. It is our hope
that States with an interest in a particular chemical substance will in
fact bring forward relevant scientific information on chemical hazards,
uses and exposures to inform an effective federal decision. This will
ensure that EPA is making the most informed decisions for the citizens
of the United States as a whole, rather than one State affording
protection to only a fraction of the country.
Senator Vitter, before we conclude our discussion on preemption, I
would to ask you to help clarify the intent of the preemption provision
as it relates to actions taken prior to enactment of the Frank
Lautenberg bill.
Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe, for those important
clarifications to preemption and for another question that is very
important to clarify in order to capture the full conngressional intent
of the bills preemption section. This Act is intended to change the
preemption provisions of TSCA only with respect to regulations
promulgated and actions taken under this Act after its effective date.
This Act is not intended to alter any preemptive effect on common law
or state positive law of regulations promulgated or administrative
actions taken under preexisting authorities, and is not intended to
make any statement regarding legal rights under preexisting
authorities, including TSCA sections 6 and 17 in effect prior to the
effective date of this Act.
Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate your clarification on the intent of an
important aspect of preemption under this act and also wanted to follow
up with a question on judicial review. Specifically, what changes to
TSCA's judicial review provisions have been made in the compromise?
Mr. VITTER. When TSCA was first enacted in 1976, the Act created a
higher level of judicial review for certain rulemakings that would
restrict chemicals in commerce. Congress took this approach because it
wanted to ensure that rulemakings that would directly affect commerce
by imposing restrictions on chemicals would be well supported with
substantial evidence. The substantial evidence standard requires an
agency rule to be supported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking
record taken as a whole. The compromise legislation makes no changes to
the process for judicial review of rulemakings or the standard of
review.
The compromise now provides EPA with expanded authority to pursue
certain administrative actions by order in

[[Page S3522]]

addition to by rule. This new order authority is intended to allow EPA
greater flexibility to move quickly to collect certain information and
take certain actions. It is intended that an agency order constitute
final agency action on issuance and be subject to judicial review.
Orders under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of TSCA constitute final agency
action on issuance, and continue to be reviewed under the standards
established by the Administrative Procedures Act. The intention is that
regulatory actions that result in total or partial bans of chemicals,
regardless of whether such action is by rule or order authority, be
supported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record taken as a
whole.
Senator Inhofe, before we are done I think there are a few other
sections of the bill that have been less discussed that it would be
important to touch on. The first is Section 9 of TSCA which discusses
the relationship between this and other laws. Could you please speak to
what the intent of this bill with regards to Section 9 is?
Mr. INHOFE. The Senate Report language states that section 9 of TSCA
provides EPA with discretionary authority to address unreasonable risks
of chemical substances and mixtures under other environmental laws.
``For example, if the Administrator finds that disposal of a chemical
substance may pose risks that could be prevented or reduced under the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Administrator should ensure that the
relevant office of the EPA receives that information.''
Likewise, the House Report on section 9 of TSCA states: ``For
example, if the Administrator determines that a risk to health or the
environment associated with disposal of a chemical substance could be
eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, the Administrator should use those authorities to protect
against the risk.''
This act states in new section 9(a)(5) of TSCA that the Administrator
shall not be relieved of any obligation to take appropriate action to
address risks from a chemical substance under sections 6(a) and 7,
including risks posed by disposal of the chemical substance or mixture.
Consistent with the Senate and House reports, this provision means that
the Administrator should use authorities under the other laws such as
the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prevent or reduce the risks associated
with disposal of a chemical substance or mixture.
Senator Vitter, I know another section that is very important to you
is the language around sound science and we all know you have worked to
ensure that this bill fixes the scientific concerns of the National
Academy of Science and other scientific bodies who have raised concerns
with the way EPA has reviewed chemicals in the past. Could you please
discuss the Congressional intent of the bills science provisions?
Mr. VITTER. Thank you Senator Inhofe, the sound science provisions
were a critical part of TSCA reform in my opinion and I hope this bill
serves as a model for how to responsibly reform other laws administered
by EPA and other Federal Agencies that are tasked to make decisions
based on science. For far too long Federal agencies have manipulated
science to fit predetermined political outcomes, hiding information and
underlying data, rather than using open and transparent science to
justify fair and objective decision making. This Act seeks to change
all of that and ensure that EPA uses the best available science, bases
scientific decisions on the weight of the scientific evidence rather
than one or two individual cherry-picked studies, and forces a much
greater level of transparency that forces EPA to show their work to
Congress and the American public.
Congress recognized the need to use available studies, reports and
recommendations for purposes of chemical assessments rather than
creating them from whole cloth. We do believe, however, that the
recommendations in reports of the National Academy of Sciences should
not be the sole basis of the chemical assessments completed by EPA.
Rather, the EPA must conduct chemical assessments consistent with all
applicable statutory provisions and agency guidelines, policies and
procedures. Further, in instances where there were other studies and
reports unavailable at the time of the NAS recommendations, EPA should
take advantage of those studies and reports in order to ensure that the
science used for chemical assessments is the best available and most
current science.
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you for clarifying the Congressional intent of the
important science provisions in this bill. I wanted to ask you one
final question that is another key element to reforming this outdated
law. It should be clear to all that H.R. 2576 attempts to ensure that
the Environmental Protection Agency takes the possible exposures to
sensitive subpopulations into account when prioritizing, assessing and
regulating high priority chemical substances. The goal, of course, is
to ensure that factors that may influence exposures or risk are
considered as the Agency assesses and determines the safety of chemical
substances.
A concern, however, could be that the language regarding sensitive
subpopulations may be read by some to promote the concept of ``low dose
linearity'' or ``no threshold'' for many chemicals, including
substances that are not carcinogens. This concept has not been firmly
established in the scientific community. Does H.R. 2576 address this
concern?
Mr. VITTER. That is an important question Senator Inhofe and I
appreciate the opportunity to clarify. The Lautenberg bill tries to
address the concern about forcing paralysis by analysis in several
ways. First, the bill establishes that `unreasonable risk under the
conditions of use' as the safety standard to be applied by EPA.
``Unreasonable risk'' does not mean no risk; it means that EPA must
determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the risks posed by a
specific high priority substance are reasonable in the circumstances of
exposure and use. Second, the bill requires EPA to specifically
identify the sensitive subpopulations that are relevant to and within
the scope of the safety assessment and determination on the substance
in question. At the same time, EPA should identify the scientific basis
for the susceptibility, to ensure transparency for all stakeholders. In
this way, the legislation affords EPA the discretion to identify
relevant subpopulations but does not require--or expect--that all
hypothetical subpopulations be addressed.
While a principle element of this compromise is including protections
for potentially susceptible subpopulations to better protect pregnant
women and children, a core of the bill since it was first introduced by
Senator Lautenberg and I was never to require the national standard to
be protective of every identified subpopulation in every instance. If a
chemical substance is being regulated in a condition of use that we
know has no exposure to a subpopulation, EPA should apply the
``unreasonable risk'' standard appropriately. In addition, it is clear
that the concept of low dose linearity is not firmly established by the
science, and the concept is not appropriate to apply as a default in
risk evaluations.
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you very much for that explanation, Senator Vitter.

Mercury-Specific Provisions in the bill

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, we rise to highlight two mercury-
specific provisions--the creation of a mercury inventory and expansion
of the export ban to certain mercury compounds--in the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act that the Senate
will approve tonight. These provisions are sections of the Mercury Use
Reduction Act that we introduced in the 112th Congress with the late
Senator Frank Lautenberg, after whom this legislation is named, and
with then-Senator John Kerry. Senator Leahy and Senator Merkley have
been longtime partners in these efforts. Senator Leahy was a leader in
the Senate's consideration of a resolution of disapproval concerning
the Bush administration's mercury rule. I yield to Senator Leahy.
Mr. Leahy. Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse. His leadership
in this area has been paramount.
Under the mercury inventory provision, the EPA will be required to
prepare an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United
States every 3 years. Despite an EPA commitment in 2006 to collect this
data, there is not yet any good data on mercury

[[Page S3523]]

supply and uses in the United States. This lack of data has impacted
our ability to reduce health risks from mercury exposure and would
compromise our ability to comply with the Minamata Convention of
Mercury, which will come into force next year and to which the U.S.
Government has agreed to become a party. When preparing the inventory,
EPA shall identify the remaining manufacturing and product uses in the
United States and recommend revisions to federal laws or regulations
for addressing the remaining uses. The term ``revisions'' in this
provision includes both new laws or regulations or modifications to
existing law.
To provide the data needed to compile the inventory, companies
producing or importing mercury or mercury compounds or using mercury or
mercury compounds will be required to report on this activity under a
rule to be issued by the Administrator. To minimize any reporting
burden, EPA must coordinate its reporting with State mercury product
reporting requirements through the Interstate Mercury Education and
Reduction Clearinghouse, IMERC. In addition, the provision excludes
waste management activities already reported under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, from this reporting, unless the
waste management activity produces mercury via retorts or other
treatment operations. A company engaged in both waste generation or
management and mercury manufacture or use must report on the mercury
manufacture and use activity, since that data would not be provided
under the RCRA reporting. I yield to Senator Merkley.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy.
The second mercury provision builds upon the Mercury Export Ban Act
of 2008, expanding the export ban currently in effect for elemental
mercury to certain mercury compounds previously identified by EPA or
other regulatory bodies as capable of being traded to produce elemental
mercury in commercial quantities and thereby undermine the existing
export ban. The mercury compound export ban would go into effect in
2020, providing EPA and companies ample preparation time. An exemption
is provided to allow the landfilling of these compounds in Canada, a
member country to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, OECD, with which we have a bilateral arrangement to allow
these cross-border transfers. The export is only authorized for
landfilling; no form of mercury or mercury compound recovery, reuse, or
direct use is permitted. EPA must evaluate whether such exports should
continue within 5 years, in part based upon available domestic disposal
options, and report to Congress on this evaluation so we may revise the
law as needed. I have been happy to partner with Senator Whitehouse and
Senator Leahy on these issues.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Merkley. We are
pleased these provisions were included in a bill and believe it is
fitting they are included in a package designed to protect the public
from toxic chemicals, like mercury, and named after the late Frank
Lautenberg, one of the original cosponsors of the Mercury Use Reduction
Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I will yield the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is all the time remaining.
Mr. INHOFE. That is all the time remaining; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. INHOFE. I will not use 7\1/2\ minutes, but I will be using that
after the vote. I do want to include one more person who has not been
thanked, and that is Senator McCain.
Right now we are in the middle of the must-pass bill every year, the
Defense authorization bill. He was kind enough to allow us to work this
in during his very busy schedule on this bill, which we are trying to
get through this week. So I do thank him very much.
It is important, even though we thank the same people over and over
again. When it gets to Dimitri, I am going to pronounce his name right,
and I will be thanking him and several others. With that, I yield our
time back.
I see the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. INHOFE. Of course.
Mr. MARKEY. I just want to once again compliment Senator Inhofe and
Senator Vitter. It didn't have to wind up this way. It wound up this
way because you reached across the aisle, because you ensured that all
sides were given a fair hearing, and that at the end of the day there
would be this result.
I have been doing this for 40 years. I have been on the Environment
Committee for 40 years. This is not easy. From my perspective, it is
historic and it is unprecedented in terms of ultimately how easy the
Senator made this process. I was there at the table of Superfund, Clean
Air Act, all the way down the line. You--you, my friend, have
distinguished yourself, and along with Senator Vitter you have made it
possible for all of us to hold hands here as this historic bill tonight
will pass on the Senate floor.
I just wanted to compliment the Senator.
Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from
Massachusetts very much.
Mr. President, I yield back our time and ask for the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
concur.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me go through the list. As I made the
statement, it is important that people recognize how long staff works
around here. Quite frankly, I have often said, when they come around
for a report from our committee--the Environment and Public Works
Committee, the committee that has the largest jurisdiction in the
entire U.S. Senate--we are the committee that gets things done.
If we look at the variety of philosophies that are present praising
this work that is being done, we had the very most conservative to the
very most progressive of Members, and it is not just this bill. We did
the highway reauthorization bill, something that had to wait for about
8 years to get done, the largest one since 1998. We had the WRDA bill,
which we anticipate is going to be a reality. It has come out of our
committee. This committee also has jurisdiction over the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and then all of the public works. As my ranking
member, Senator Boxer, has said several times during this process, we
get things done.
Now, we do disagree on a lot of the issues on the environment. As I
say to my good friends on the other side of the aisle, you have every
right to be wrong, but we get things done, and I appreciate that very
much.
Senator McCain, I already thanked you for yielding to us to allow us
to pass one of the most significant bills which we just passed by voice
vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to be thanked again.
Mr. UDALL. I am ready to do that also, if the Senator will yield.
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I will just also--has the Senator finished?
I just wanted to say a few closing words and thank a few more people
staying to the end, but of course the chairman needs to finish his
remarks.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me just quickly say--because I do want to make sure
we get on the record on this, Senators Vitter and Udall, certainly the
Senator from New Mexico. The way we have worked together is remarkable.
The Senator has brought in Bonnie to do the work she has done. I know
she wanted to be here as we are voting on this bill, but it got down to
do we want to get it done tonight or do we want to take a chance for
later.
Dimitri Karakitsos, all these were working. Jonathan Black with
Senator Udall's office has been great, and Andrew Wallace so ably
represented Senator Udall in those negotiations. I thank Michal
Freedhoff in Senator Markey's office for the hours of work he poured
into this bill. I also thank Adrian Deveny with Senator Merkley for his
work in these negotiations and Adam Zipkin representing Senator

[[Page S3524]]

Booker. A special thanks goes to Bill Ghent and Emily Spain with
Senator Carper. Senator Carper has not been mentioned much tonight, but
he has been very active in getting this done. Emily Enderle with
Senator Whitehouse. Senators Carper, Whitehouse, Merkley, and Booker
have been partners in getting this completed. Finally, I appreciate, as
I have said many times before, Senator Boxer and her team, Bettina
Poirier and Jason Albritton, for working with us in support of this
bill. We have done not just this bill but a lot of bills in the
committee, and these same characters keep coming up. So it is the staff
who has driven this thing. I have to say, my chief of staff, the one
most prominent on the committee, obviously did so much of the work on
this. So, Ryan Jackson, you did a great job.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. UDALL. I thank the chairman. I just want to say to Chairman
Inhofe, the bipartisanship he showed is incredible, and it showed what
a significant accomplishment we could have.
I also want to thank so much Senator McCain for allowing us to fit a
little slice here in the middle of this very important bill, the NDAA,
which I know he works on all year long. He does a terrific job. He
allowed us to come in.
He knew my uncle, Mo Udall. They served together in the House. I
said: I hope you will do this for Mo. He just got a very big smile on
his face because he spent so much time with him.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. UDALL. I will yield.
Mr. INHOFE. I save one of the best for last, and that is Alex
Herrgott. I neglected to mention him.
Mr. UDALL. Of course, Alex, thank you.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use enough time here to
just get through my thank-yous.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.
Mr. UDALL. The House and the Senate passed bills. We didn't actually
go through conference committee, but we worked hard on those
differences from late December through just a few weeks ago. We faced
challenges working out a final agreement with the House. We had two
very different bills. Both had broad bipartisan support, but they took
very different paths to fix our broken chemical safety program, but we
worked through those issues too. Although this was not a formal
conference, it was a true bicameral process with a lot of give-and-
take. To that end, I want to ensure the record reflects a number of
views that I and some of my colleagues have about the final product.
We are not filing a traditional conference report, but Senators
Boxer, Markey, Merkley, and I have prepared a document to enshrine the
views we have on the compromised language. That will be added to the
Record for posterity on our final product.
I thank all of our Senate and House colleagues who were instrumental
in pulling this together. Again, Chairman Inhofe was a driving force,
and Senators Vitter, Crapo, Capito, and Senators Merkley, Markey, and
Boxer. Throughout this entire process, Ranking Member Boxer and I
didn't always agree. We are of the same party, but we also have
different opinions about the most important aspects of this
legislation. I want to say I sincerely appreciate her work and
advocacy, especially on State preemption. She is a force. All of my
colleagues know that. She worked hard to improve this bill. The
legislative process is an important one, and I believe it played out to
a good resolution.
I also thank her and her staff, Bettina Poirier and Jason Albritton,
for their dedication and work. Then, my staff members who have been
mentioned here several times were crucial: Jonathan Black, Andrew
Wallace, Mike Collins, Bianca Ortiz Wertheim, and all my staff who over
these 3 years kicked in and helped out when the heavy burden was on the
folks I have mentioned.
On the House side, I thank Chairman Fred Upton, Subcommittee Chairman
John Shimkus, of course Leader Pelosi, Democrat Whip Hoyer, Ranking
Member Pallone, and Representatives DeGette and Green. They all worked
tirelessly to advocate for reform.
I would like to mention their staff members as well: Republican
staff, Dave McCarthy, Jerry Couri, Tina Richardson, Chris Sarley, and
the Democratic staff, Rick Kessler, Jackie Cohen, Tuley Wright, Jean
Frucci, and especially Mary Frances Repko with Representative Hoyer's
office, and Eleanor Bastion and Sergio Espinosa with Representatives
DeGette's and Green's offices. All these staff and so many more worked
tirelessly to advocate for their members and shape and move this
complex and important legislation, and of course my own staff and many
more whom I did not mention, many Senate and House staff who have come
and gone over the long process but played very important roles. There
are too many to try and list, but let me say thanks to the good folks
at the House and Senate legislative counsel offices. Throughout this
process, we used both offices a tremendous amount and appreciated their
patience and good work, especially Michelle Johnson-Weider, Maureen
Contreni, and Deanna Edwards at the Senate legislative counsel.
A law like this takes so much work from all these offices and staff.
I know my own staff could not have possibly done it without the
expertise and advice of the experts at the Environmental Protection
Agency. Of course, Administrator Gina McCarthy and her top assistant,
Administrator Jim Jones, deserve a great deal of gratitude for all they
did to help support our efforts and ensure we got it right, and many
congressional liaisons, program officers, and lawyers from the general
counsel's office. My staff and others spent many evenings and weekends
with EPA experts on calls to make sure we were getting the text right.
Here are just a few: Wendy Cleland-Hamnet, Ryan Wallace, Priscilla
Flattery, Kevin McLean, Brian Grant, David Berol, Laura Vaught, Nichole
Distefano, Sven-Erik Kaiser, Tristan Brown, Ryan Schmit, Don Sadowsky,
and Scott Sherlock. I thank them all and put them on alert: The real
job for the EPA is only beginning.
I am about finished, Senator Markey.
Mr. MARKEY. One second. I just wanted to reinforce what the Senator
just said. On the House side, Fred Upton, Frank Pallone, Nancy Pelosi,
and Steny Hoyer, that incredible staff, Mary Frances Repko, over there,
just indispensable. That is why it happened. It is bipartisan,
bicameral.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. UDALL. I thank the Senator. He knows, because he has served so
many years, how important it is to have good staff. I want to make sure
we get them thanked here. I appreciate that.

Implementation of this law is going to be extremely important. As the
ranking member on the Appropriations Committee with jurisdiction over
EPA, I will remain very involved in ensuring that this law gets
implemented well.
Finally, I also recognize all the great advocates for reform who
pushed Congress to act and kept pushing until we did act. Of course, I
need to start by thanking the Environmental Defense Fund. In
particular, Fred Krupp and his staff, Richard Denison, Joanna Slaney,
and Jack Pratt. Let me also thank Dr. Lynn Goldman, the dean of Public
Health at George Washington University, and the good advocates at Moms
Clean Air Force, the Humane Society, the National Wildlife Federation,
the March of Dimes, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine,
the Building Trades, the American Association of Justice, and so many
others. They reminded us that we are working for reform that would
improve the lives of countless mothers, fathers, and children. From New
Mexico to Michigan, from California to Maine, they reminded us that the
American people need a working chemical safety program.
I know there are many other groups in the environmental and public
health community that took a different approach to our bill. I
understand and appreciate where they were coming from--groups like
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, and the Natural Resources Defense
Council. They brought passion and conviction to the debate and stood
firm on principles. They played a great and important role, and I want
to thank them for that.
Good legislation takes work. It takes give-and-take from everyone,
including industry groups, the American Chemistry Council, the American
Cleaning Institute, and over 100 other members of the American Alliance
for Innovation. Thank you for engaging in the

[[Page S3525]]

process to get this done. Many thousands of Americans have worked for
chemical safety reform over the last four decades. I am thanking you
for not giving up.
My dad always said--and Senator McCain knew my father Stewart Udall--
``Get it done, but get it done right.'' And today I can say that not
only did we get it done, but we got it done right. Let's not forget,
this is just one step in the process. We must find a way to work
collaboratively as we turn to the next step--implementation.
Implementation needs to be done and needs to be done right.
I look forward to working with all of these members and groups to
ensure we have a strong, workable chemical safety program.
Thank you, Senator McCain. I am sorry if this went longer than you
expected. I know my Uncle Mo is looking down and saying thank you to
you and my father Stewart and the long relationship you have had with
the Udall family and the chapters in your books about Mo Udall and that
relationship. So thank you so much, and I thank also Ranking Member
Jack Reed for his patience. I know the hour is getting late. Thank you
so much.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
I just wonder if there is anyone left in America whom he has not
thanked.
Mr. UDALL. I did my best.

____________________