[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7978-7992]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 7979]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 7980]]

  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. 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.

[[Page 7981]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 7982]]

  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 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.

[[Page 7983]]

  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:

  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

[[Page 7984]]

     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.


                   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

[[Page 7985]]

     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.


                         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)

[[Page 7986]]

     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 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.

[[Page 7987]]

  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 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

[[Page 7988]]

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 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

[[Page 7989]]

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--the 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 chooses to review 
through a risk evaluation. States with compelling circumstances can 
request and be granted a waiver by EPA. These waiver and scope 
limitations ensure that the pause 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 like 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 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 and 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

[[Page 7990]]

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 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;

[[Page 7991]]

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 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 saved 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

[[Page 7992]]

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 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.

                          ____________________