[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6375-6376]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              TOXIC REFORM

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will take about 3 minutes to talk about 
my last issue today, and that is the toxic reform bill that passed out 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  Mr. President, I have some great news about the toxic bill. The 
original Vitter-Udall bill was slain and is gone and in its place is a 
better bill. That is the great news. The bad news is it is still not a 
really good bill. We have to do better, and we can do better.
  What we did in this bill is to understand that we had to negotiate 
certain items out of it, and one of the items we had to negotiate was 
how far the original bill went in preempting State laws, which we have 
now addressed. Credit goes to 450 organizations that--although they 
still oppose this bill--pushed hard for those changes. Credit also goes 
to Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, and Booker, who told me they wanted to 
try to negotiate some changes. I blessed them, and they went and did 
it. For that I have to thank a Senator who is no longer with us, Ted 
Kennedy. He taught me that, as a chairman, you need to understand that 
sometimes you have to turn to your colleagues and let them move 
forward. And I was happy to do that.
  The changes that came back included a part-way fix on preemption, a 
full fix on preempting air and water laws when it comes to toxics. And 
coenforcement has been fixed. So we are very, very pleased.
  What is not really fixed, however, is that we want to make sure 
States have even more latitude to move if they see a danger. If there 
is a cancer cluster among kids or adults around this country, we want 
to make sure that the Federal Government will move to help them. We 
want to make sure that asbestos is addressed directly in this bill 
because 10,000 people a year die from asbestos exposure. If there is a 
chemical stored near a drinking water supply, we want to make sure that 
it, in fact, will receive priority attention.
  What chemical is in there? We saw it happen in West Virginia. Senator 
Manchin wrote a really good bill with me. We should address that, and I 
was happy to see that we had some bipartisan votes on those last two 
fixes.
  We have to fix this bill, and I just don't agree with anyone who 
comes to the floor and says it is perfect. But what I think is not 
important. What is important is what 450 groups think, and they think 
the bill has to be fixed.
  Let's be clear. The people who say we have to fix the bill with 
perfecting amendments include the American Public Health Association 
and its Public Health Nursing Section, the Asbestos Disease Awareness 
Organization, the Consumers Union, the Institute for Agriculture and 
Trade Policy, the National Disease Clusters Alliance, the National 
Hispanic Medical Association, the Birth Defect Research for Children, 
Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Maryland Nurses Association, 
the Massachusetts Nurses Association, the National Association of 
Hispanic Nurses, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and 
Neonatal Nurses, the Breast Cancer Action, the Breast Cancer Fund, 
Huntington Breast Cancer Coalition, Kids v Cancer, and the Lung Cancer 
Alliance. It goes on and on. A full list of the organizations can be 
found at saferchemicals.org/coalition.
  I say to my colleagues that the Vitter-Udall bill is much better now 
than when it was introduced, and these 450 groups did everything in 
their power to help us fix the bill. We are halfway there. I hope we 
can negotiate some more fixes--and maybe we can do that.
  If we can pass four or five of these amendments, we are on our way. 
But if we cannot fix the bill and it does come here, there will be a 
lot of talking about how to fix it. There will be a lot of talking, a 
lot of standing on our feet, and a lot of rallies with 450 groups. That 
is the choice the Senate faces, and in the end, we will deal with this.
  I took to the floor today to thank my colleagues who helped negotiate 
this from a bill that was a disaster to a better bill, and I also want 
to make sure that these 450 organizations, including NRDC--what they 
did by standing up and calling for Safer Chemicals Healthy Families--
was so fantastic. They never allowed people to talk them down or bully 
them out of the room. I stand with them 100 percent. The Asbestos 
Disease Awareness Organization was incredible.
  We have some hope here. All we have to do is keep on fixing this 
bill, and it could come to a good place.
  I so appreciate the patience of my colleagues. I talked long about 
two bills which are very important. I hope we will not get on this 
trade bill. I hope we will move to an agenda for the middle class.

[[Page 6376]]

  As I said, the original toxic chemicals bill, S. 697, that according 
to a prize-winning reporter was written on the computer of the American 
Chemistry Council, was deeply flawed. That bill is gone. Thanks to the 
public health organizations, environmental organizations such as the 
Environmental Working Group, Safer Chemicals, the Breast Cancer Fund, 
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, NRDC, nurses, physicians, the 
media, and individuals such as Deirdre Imus, Linda Reinstein, and 
Trevor Schaefer. Those individuals and organizations put S. 697, the 
original bill, front and center and, despite its beautiful name, saw it 
for what it was.
  The amended version that was reported out of the EPW Committee last 
month included fixes to preemption of State air and water laws, co-
enforcement of chemical restrictions by States, and removal of a 
harmful provision that would have undermined EPA's ability to restrict 
the import of dangerous chemicals from foreign countries.
  However, there are still critical changes that must be made in order 
for this bill to do what has been advertised and protect public health.
  Leading public health, labor, and environmental groups, including the 
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition, which represents 450 
environmental, labor, and public health groups; the Asbestos Disease 
Awareness Organization; AFL-CIO; Environmental Working Group, the 
Breast Cancer Fund, and the Center for Environmental Health, and others 
have made clear that they do not support the bill reported from the EPW 
Committee because key improvements are needed if we are to achieve real 
TSCA reform.
  Our common goal is real TSCA reform. We should fix the dangerous 
loopholes that could undo the good intentions of so many who have 
worked on this effort.
  As Lisa Heinzerling, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center 
and former senior EPA official pointed out in a recent blog titled, 
``Toxic Ambiguity: the Dangerous Mixed Messages of the Udall-Vitter 
Bill to Reform TSCA,'' these are serious loopholes that must be 
addressed.
  I believe the needed fixes are achievable. Some of these changes, 
which I offered in the EPW Committee, received bipartisan support. As 
we move forward, I ask my colleagues to join me to keep making this 
bill better.
  We need to address clusters of cancer, birth defects and other 
diseases, especially when children are affected. Communities should 
have the tools they need to determine whether there is a connection 
between these clusters and contaminants in the surrounding environment. 
Senator Crapo was a cosponsor of this common-sense provision and voted 
for it in the EPW Committee.
  We must ensure the chemicals that could contaminate drinking water 
supplies, such as the spill that occurred in West Virginia last year, 
are prioritized. Senator Capito from West Virginia supported this 
amendment in the EPW Committee.
  We must ensure States can continue to act. The bill reported from the 
EPW Committee could still shut the States out for years from the 
ability to protect their citizens from toxic hazards. The process for 
State action is complicated and confusing and likely to end up in the 
courthouse. If the intention is to allow the States to act if the 
Federal Government has not done so, the bill needs to be amended to 
make that clear.
  Asbestos has been a poster child for this bill and it is one of the 
most dangerous substances known to humankind--it takes 10,000 lives a 
year. We need to ensure that EPA can expeditiously review and take 
action to ban asbestos within 3 or less years.
  The legal standard of review in this bill is the same as the original 
TSCA. We must ensure that there are no opportunities for the fatal 
flaws of current TSCA to be retained in the new law.
  These are the kind of fixes I believe we can accomplish.
  I think my colleagues and I can agree that there are safeguards that 
still need to be put in place. Now it is time to ensure that these 
safeguards become a reality.
  We need to get it right this time. The stakes are high.
  I look forward to working with colleagues to make this chemical 
safety bill do the job that our families and children deserve.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

                          ____________________