U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–634 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1231 

HEARING ON THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE’S INVESTIGATION OF EPA’S 

EFFORTS TO PROTECT CHILDREN’S HEALTH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 17, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 17, 2010 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 1 

Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida ................................... 3 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 10 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 11 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 120 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 121 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 122 

WITNESSES 

Grevatt, Peter, Ph.D., Director, Office of Children’s Health Protection and 

Environmental Education, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................ 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 33 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 39 

Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 61 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 64 

Solomon, Gina M., M.D., M.P.H., Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense 

Council; Associate Director, Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit; 

Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco ....................................................................................................................... 72

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 83 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 87 

Bearer, Cynthia, M.D., Ph.D., FAAP, Division Chief, Neonatology, University 

of Maryland School of Medicine; Children’s Environmental Health Network 

Board Chair .......................................................................................................... 90 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 98 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 100 

Schettler, Ted, M.D., M.P.H., Science Director, Science and Environmental 

Health Network .................................................................................................... 101 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 103 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE’S INVESTIGATION OF EPA’S 

EFFORTS TO PROTECT CHILDREN’S 

HEALTH 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in 

room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Amy Klobuchar 

(acting Chairman of the full Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Klobuchar, Lautenberg, Cardin, and Udall. 

Also present: Senator Nelson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think we are ready to begin this hearing 

and convene this hearing. 

I want to thank everyone for waiting. Senator Boxer is on her 

way. We had votes, as you know, so we appreciate everyone’s patience. I know that Senator Boxer will be joining us, and I know 

that Senator Nelson is also. We are very honored to have him here 

with us. 

I am the Chair of the Subcommittee on Children’s Health, and 

as the mother of a 14-year-old, I am particularly interested in 

doing all that we can to protect and improve the health of our kids, 

especially when it comes to the environment. Every one of us has 

a stake in making sure kids grow up happy and healthy. 

This is important not only for the well-being of our kids but also 

for our country. I know parents have an increasingly difficult job 

in today’s world. The economic pressures, the time demands, and 

the many outside influences that affect our kids, all of these and 

more make it an especially challenging time for America’s families. 

Since I have entered the Senate I have made children’s health 

one of my top priorities. Part of that was because I got involved 

when a little kid, a 4-year-old, swallowed a charm that he got with 

a pair of tennis shoes, and he ended up dying. He did not die from 

choking. He did not die from somehow that charm blocking his airways. He died because there was lead in that charm. When they 

tested it, it was 100 percent lead, and the lead in that charm went 

into his bloodstream, and he died over a period of days. 

When you hear stories like that you know that things are not all 

right for the kids in this country. And that is why I worked with 
2 

Senator Pryor and others, and Senator Nelson on the Commerce 

Committee, to pass what the Wall Street Journal called the most 

sweeping consumer legislation in 16 years with the Children’s 

Products Bill that we passed. 

I have also worked with Senator Crapo on our formaldehyde bill. 

We now have many, many authors, I think nearly 20 authors, and 

it is heading to the floor. It went through the Committee. Again, 

formaldehyde in wood products is something that is not a partisan 

issue. 

We are also looking at the effects of outdoor pollutants. With 

nearly 9 million kids in the United States affected by asthma, it 

is the leading serious chronic illness among our children. Outdoor 

air pollution worsens existing asthma. 

Kids are already at greater risk from outdoor air pollution than 

healthy adults since kids have smaller airways than adults which 

are blocked easier, causing children to breathe more rapidly. According to the EPA, 66 percent of kids live in countries that exceed 

allowable levels of at least one of the principal air pollutants that 

cause or aggravate asthma. That not only affects our children’s 

health, but it contributes to $3.2 billion in medical costs per year. 

And that was actually 66 percent of kids that live in counties that 

exceed rates. 

We are also working in the Agriculture Committee to increase 

nutrition standards. That bill is actually being introduced today by 

Senator Lincoln and is something that will also be important as we 

go ahead for our children. 

But more work must be done. I joined with Senator Boxer in requesting the GAO report that we will be hearing about today because we wanted to learn more about what EPA is doing to focus 

efforts on children’s environmental health. With the increased 

prevalence of asthma, obesity, and chemical toxins, the agency 

should be focused on what steps we can take to prevent the spread 

and incidence of these risks but also researching long-term strategies to help improve the overall health of our children. 

To develop an effective, focused strategy EPA must be working 

with other agencies, like the Department of Health and Human 

Services, to coordinate this effort. At one time, we had this coordination. In 1997 the President’s Task Force on Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks was authorized by Executive 

Order to provide this guidance and interagency coordination on 

children’s environmental health. This task force ensured that agencies were working together on efforts to improve health and provided the type of commitment we need to ensure long-term goals 

to combat environmental risk. 

That is why I am proud to introduce legislation, along with Senator Boxer, that would finally reestablish this task force. As a 

former prosecutor I know that the first responsibility of government is to protect our citizens. So we must do everything we can 

to make sure our Government is doing all that it can to protect our 

youngest citizens from environmental harm. 

Ensuring that agencies are coordinating their efforts not only 

means that we can develop an effective strategy to improve the 

health of our kids, but it means that our Government can ensure 
3 

that we are using taxpayer dollars effectively and not duplicating 

programs or working at cross purposes. 

I look forward to hearing from out panelists about the GAO’s 

findings and efforts to address the environmental health issues 

that are affecting our children. They are the most vulnerable 

among us, and it is our responsibility to protect them. 

Our first witness, or more than that, expert, testifying today, I 

am pleased to see Senator Nelson here. He has been very active on 

this issue. I know that because I am on the Commerce Committee. 

And I thank him for coming today. 

Senator Nelson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Chair, may I just talk to you and submit my comments 

for the record along with a number of letters from the people in the 

area affected? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Without objection. Your comments will be 

put in the record. 

Senator NELSON. Madam Chairman, we have an area west of 

West Palm Beach in Palm Beach County, Florida, called the Acreage. It is a residential area that has a rural character. There have 

been a number of children diagnosed with cancerous tumors, and 

all live within a radius of a couple of miles of each other. 

Naturally, the consternation of not knowing if this is a cancer 

cluster has disrupted the lives of thousands of people who live in 

this area because now, with the fact that it might be a cancer cluster, you know what has happened to the value of homes, and you 

know what has happened to the ability to sell your home if someone has to move, with the fact that some people are so fearful that 

this is a cancer cluster have moved out and are renting elsewhere 

in the city, in the county, while still maintaining the mortgage on 

their home in this particular area. 

This is an upscale area. It is on well water, and in this part of 

Florida these are shallow wells, and they are on septic tanks. So, 

the question is, what is the cause? 

So, a year ago, when this came to my attention, I went to the 

Florida Department of Health. A part of them is the County Health 

Department. They are the ones to try to determine if this is a 

health hazard. And for almost a year now they have been studying 

this, and they cannot come up with any conclusions. 

And so I am asking this Committee—and thank the Good Lord 

that you have got a Committee that is concerned that there might 

be these cancer clusters around the country—I am asking this 

Committee to bring the full weight of the expertise of the Federal 

Government to assist the first responders, which are the State Departments of Health, in determining if these are cancer clusters 

and if so, what we can do about it. And that means reaching out 

to the expertise of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, 

as well as the Department of HHS and all of its myriad agencies 

including the CDC, the NCI, the NIH, et cetera. 

Now, that is what we need, because these people are in a terrible 

situation, fearful for their health, but at the same time, because of 
4 

no conclusions, paying a terrible price in not being able to move on 

with their lives. 

In the testimony that I have submitted, and some of the letters 

that I have submitted, I have chronicled the specific cases of children that had these brain tumors. Now, is this something from the 

soil? Is this something from the shallow wells of the water? Is it 

particularly because children are the ones that get out and play in 

the dirt and crawl around on the floor and play in the puddles? We 

do not know. And we need to help bring about a resolution of information and conclusions. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before you today. Chairman Boxer, thank you for 

your continued leadership and actions to protect our Nation’s children. 

While the Committee examines the role of the Environmental Protection Agency 

and children’s health I’d like to bring your attention to a community in Palm Beach, 

Florida, called the Acreage. 

This town of about 50,000 has been shaken by fears of a cancer cluster. In February a study by the State health department found higher than normal incidences 

of brain and central nervous system cancer in girls and young women. Some residents have lost a loved one, others aren’t sure if their homes are safe to live in, 

and if they try to leave, they worry they won’t even be able to sell their homes. 

Despite a year-long investigation, we still don’t know what’s causing these cancers, and people cannot get their lives back to normal until they have answers. 

Last summer I asked the EPA and Centers for Disease Control to get involved 

and help the State and local health department in its investigation. 

The Federal Government should take a larger and more proactive role in these 

complex and highly technical investigations because it has the expertise to lend a 

hand with detailed and sophisticated analysis. 

EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment. In order to fulfill 

that role and to help communities like the Acreage that are desperate for answers, 

the first step would be bringing the EPA and various agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services together to lay out a plan for what a Federal 

role should be in the investigation of cancer clusters. 

I also believe the agencies, led by EPA and HHS, should prepare rapid response 

teams that will advise and assist not only the State and local health departments 

but help with communicating what’s going on to the community. Here’s why we 

need to act, and we need to do it immediately. 

Jenna McCann died just 2 months before her 5th birthday because of a rare, aggressive form of brain cancer. A few years later her family learned of two other 

young girls with the same type of rare brain cancer who also lived in the Acreage. 

Her mother, Kaye McCann, wrote to me, ‘‘How can a cancer that is so rare . . . 

affect 3 children living within just a few miles of each other in just a few years’ 

time? I don’t know what the answer is, but I know this area needs help.’’ 

Another mother, Jennifer Dunsford, was in the hospital waiting room while her 

5-year-old son had to undergo brain surgery, and she started talking with another 

family in the waiting room. As it turned out, they also live in the Acreage. Their 

daughter had just had surgery because she also had brain cancer. 

Later that same year, Jennifer found out there were two more children who lived 

in the Acreage who were diagnosed with brain cancer. 

She was the resident in the Acreage who initiated the request for a study and 

who has even gone on the Dr. Oz show to tell people about what’s happening in 

Florida and the need for more testing and for immediate help to find answers. 

There are more stories like this, and with the consent of the Chairman I’d like 

to enter them into the hearing record. 

Hearing stories like these is heartbreaking, and we’ve got to do something about 

it. I look forward to working with you on this. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. We 

really appreciate that, and hopefully we can get to the bottom of 

this. 

Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Senator Klobuchar, Chairman Klobuchar, 

thank you very much for conducting this hearing on the Government Accountability Office’s investigation of EPA’s effort to protect 

children’s health. 

Let me use a little bit of my time in opening statement to introduce a witness that will be on our second panel, Dr. Cynthia Bearer. We welcome you to the Committee from the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore City. She is the Cobey Professor 

of Neonatology and Chief of the University of Maryland Medical 

Center Hospital for Children Division of Neonatology. 

Dr. Bearer is here today on behalf of the Children’s Environmental Health Network for which she serves as the Board Chairman. The Network is the national organization whose mission it is 

to protect children from environmental health hazards and to work 

to build a healthier environment for kids to grow in. 

We certainly welcome you here, and we look forward to your testimony. I apologize. I will be running in and out because of other 

duties today. But thank you for appearing before our Committee. 

Let me just point out generally, Madam Chair, if I might, the importance of this subject. We know that children are more vulnerable to the environmental risks. We know that their bodies cannot 

detoxify at the same efficiency as older bodies can. We also know, 

as Senator Nelson pointed out, children are closer to the ground. 

Therefore, they are crawling around and are more vulnerable to 

the environmental risk factors. 

We also know that they eat and breathe more per body weight 

than adults do. So, in 1993 the National Academy of Science came 

to the conclusion that children are not little adults and therefore 

are more vulnerable to these environmental risks. 

I was pleased in 1997 that the EPA established the Office of 

Children’s Health as well as the advisory committee to implement 

and oversee a national plan to protect our children from environmental exposures. A major undertaking of the EPA is participation 

in the National Children’s Study authorized by Congress in 2000. 

The National Children’s Study examines the effects of environmental influences on the health of 100,000 children across the 

United States, following them from before birth to age 21. 

Health disparities are also affected by environmental factors 

with environmental health risks affecting minority and low income 

children disproportionately because of the demographic trends in 

the United States, according to the Interagency Forum of Child and 

Family Statistics. To this end it is particularly important to conduct research on children that will include racial and ethnic majorities, minorities, excuse me. 

There is one finding, Madam Chair, that I know, that provoked, 

I think, this hearing, and that is EPA has not updated its National 

Agenda regarding protecting children’s health in over 10 years and 
11 

that the recent 2009 goals do not include the Office of Children’s 

Health as a target area for improvement. 

This hearing is very important. Our children are our most precious assets. We say it over and over again; we want to do everything we can to protect them. They do not have the same advocacy 

as the adult community has. And yet, as Senator Nelson pointed 

out in his specific example, they are extremely vulnerable to environmental risk. 

The Environmental Protection Agency must have a focus on what 

we do to protect our children from these environmental risks. The 

study is an important part that they are participating with on 

other, with other agencies. It is also important that we update the 

strategies on a regular basis. I think this hearing is an appropriate 

oversight for our Committee, and I thank the Chair for conducting 

it. 

And with that I would yield back the balance of my time. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman, for having this 

hearing. 

Each of us who has a grandchild is immediately an expert on 

children’s health, and the concerns that we have for them rise to 

the top of our agenda. I am fortunate enough to have four kids and 

am grandfather of 11 between my wife and me. This subject is a 

crucial one for us. 

I see in my own family, I have a grandson who is 16 who has 

got asthma and a granddaughter who is 11 who has diabetes. We, 

in order to help them, I am determined, and I think we all are, to 

make sure that we do everything for grandchildren across our 

country. 

That is why in 1997 President Clinton issued an Executive Order 

to protect infants and children from environmental health risks, 

and the Administrator of the EPA created the Office of Children’s 

Health. That office developed into a powerful force that consistently 

fought for the well-being of our Nation’s children. The nature of 

children’s health was a top priority of EPA research budgets and 

policies. 

The office also made sure that children’s health was a priority 

factor when the agency created cancer guidelines, environmental 

toxin guidelines, in its data base on chemical risks. 

Unfortunately, the progress made to safeguard children’s health 

ground to a halt during the Bush administration as today’s report 

from the Government Accountability Office makes clear. The EPA 

seemed to develop collective amnesia, lost focus on children’s health 

issues, and the Office of Children’s Health withered on the vine. 

In fact, the Administrator of the EPA office showed such little interest in the office that it went without a permanent director for 

6 years. And as today’s GAO report concludes, the Office of Children’s Health, and here I quote, declined in the absence of direct 

and meaningful support from the EPA’s Administrator. 
12 

The good news is that things have turned around with Administrator Lisa Jackson at the helm of EPA. She has recommitted the 

Agency to protecting children from environmental dangers, moved 

quickly to appoint Peter Grevatt—we welcome him here—as the 

new Director of the Office of Children’s Health, and made him a 

key advisor on her team. 

Soon after his appointment Director Grevatt issued a roadmap 

with five clear priorities to protect children’s health. And I was 

pleased that he made the reform of toxics, the Toxic Substance 

Control Act, known as TSCA, a top priority. Right now TSCA is not 

up to the task of protecting our kids from toxic chemicals, and it 

has got to be overhauled so we can figure out what chemicals children are exposed to and what exactly we need to do to protect 

them. 

Children, as was said, are not simply small adults. They are extremely vulnerable to the acute dangers of toxic chemicals. And according to a report by the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition as much as 5 percent of cancers, 10 percent of neural behavioral disorders and 30 percent of asthma cases in children are associated with toxic chemicals. 

I do not know whether a report—the Op Ed piece by Nicholas 

Kristof, written in the New York Times, where he raised the question of toxics and autism. It got a lot of attention, and we are going 

to be focused in that area, thank goodness. 

So, we are here today because more work has to be done when 

it comes to children’s health. Unfortunately, I, too, am called to 

other places. Madam Chairman, this is an important Committee 

and an important hearing, and I am sure that we will establish a 

good record from which we can work. 

Thank you very much. And thank you to the witnesses. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator. 

And now we are going to move to our first panel. If you could 

come forward, I will introduce you. 

OK, well thank you for being here today. We have two panelists 

for our first panel. The first is Dr. Peter Grevatt, who is the Director of the Office of Children’s Health Protection with the EPA, and 

the second is John Stephenson, who is the Director of Natural Resources and Environment with the Government Accountability Office or, as we know them, the GAO. 

So, we will start with Director Grevatt. 

STATEMENT OF PETER GREVATT, PH.D., DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Mr. GREVATT. Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of 

the Committee. 

My name is Peter Grevatt, and I am the Director of the Office 

of Children’s Health Protection and Environmental Education at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee to discuss EPA’s efforts 

to improve children’s health. 

Children face greater threats from environmental pollutants than 

adults due to differences in their physiology, activity patterns and 
13 

development. And not all children are the same. We continue to see 

disparities in exposures and health outcomes among the poor, African American, Latino, Native American and other ethnic minorities. 

Children’s health is a driving force behind Administrator Jackson’s priorities. In February, in a memo to EPA’s senior managers, 

she reaffirmed EPA’s commitment to considering the health of 

pregnant women, infants and children in all human health related 

activities and to the use of EPA’s policy on evaluating health risks 

to children and the best available research and data to guide our 

children’s health protection efforts. 

In the memo Administrator Jackson describes EPA’s children’s 

health agenda and identifies my office, the Office of Children’s 

Health Protection, as having the lead in ensuring that the agency 

is successful in its efforts to protect children’s health. 

EPA agrees that the GAO report reflects the progress of the 

agency’s children’s health protection efforts, accurately portrays the 

agencies challenges in addressing children’s environmental health, 

and sets forth sound recommendations on steps that could be taken 

to better incorporate protection of children’s health as an integral 

part of EPA’s everyday business. 

EPA is implementing a comprehensive strategy to ensure protection of children’s environmental health which embodies the five key 

priorities I previously discussed for children’s environmental health 

at EPA. 

EPA will use the best science to ensure that regulations provide 

for protection of children’s environmental health by actively addressing the potential for unique childhood vulnerability and exposure. Our goal is to reduce negative environmental health impacts 

on children through rulemaking, policy, enforcement and research 

that focus on prenatal and childhood vulnerabilities. 

For example EPA is confronting the harmful effects of criteria air 

pollutants on the health of children. We have decided to reconsider 

the 2008 National Smog Standards to ensure that they are scientifically sound and protective of human health. We will bring the best 

science to bear in our decisions. 

The Children’s Environmental Health Centers, established in 

1998 by EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences, examined the interactions between key environmental exposures in a range of child health outcomes such as growth and development, asthma and autism, with the goals of preventing and 

reducing childhood diseases and translating the findings to the effected communities and the broader public. 

Assuring the safety of chemicals in our products and our environment is critical to ensure the health of children. EPA will establish 

standards, policies and guidance to help eliminate harmful prenatal and childhood exposures to pesticides and other toxic chemicals. 

And last year Administrator Jackson announced principles for 

modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. We are 

hopeful that TSCA will be updated by Congress so that we are better able to take action on chemicals that pose a concern, particularly those that affect children. 
14 

Separately, we are shifting EPA’s focus to address high concern 

chemicals and filling data gaps on widely produced chemicals. At 

the end of 2009 we released our first ever Chemical Action Plans 

for four groups of substances, and more plans are in the pipelines 

for 2010. 

EPA also recognizes that children may be more vulnerable to 

pesticide exposure. We are planning to further strengthen assessment of pesticide health risks. By modifying our risk assessment 

approach we hope to continue to minimize the adverse health consequences of pesticide exposures. We are also working closely with 

partners such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Protection—and Prevention, excuse me—to protect children from pesticides in residences and in schools. 

We will coordinate national and international community based 

programs to eliminate threats to children’s health. EPA is collaborating with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education and a diverse group of stakeholders through 

our Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee to provide 

tools to communities to build a new generation of healthy green 

schools and help ensure that existing schools are in good condition 

and are properly maintained. 

EPA, HHS and the Department of Housing and Urban Development are also collaborating to respond to the Surgeon General’s 

call to action on healthy homes by taking advantages of opportunities to leverage Federal resources to provide States, tribes and local 

communities with the necessary tools to help improve home environments, particularly in underserved communities. 

EPA and HHS are also joining with other Federal departments 

and agencies to work toward reestablishing the President’s Task 

Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. And with this group we will collaborate to address the most 

critical children’s environmental health issues facing the Nation. 

EPA is also working with other Federal agencies to address environmental factors that contribute to the pervasive problem of obesity in children through our participation in the Task Force on 

Childhood Obesity. 

As part of our efforts in all of these areas, we will utilize our 

Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee to help ensure 

that we are developing effective strategies to address the most significant threats to children’s environmental health. 

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, and Chairman Klobuchar and 

Members of this Committee, for the opportunity to talk to you 

today. As evident by our strategy and actions Administrator Jackson and I share your commitment to children’s environmental 

health, and we appreciate your ongoing interest in our efforts. 

Thank you again for inviting me to give testimony, and I look 

forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grevatt follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Dr. Grevatt. 

Mr. Stephenson. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL 

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss EPA’s and the Federal 

Government’s progress over the last 10-plus years in addressing 

children’s environmental health issues. My testimony summarizes 

our full report to the Committee on these issues being released 

today. 

The scientific evidence about children’s exposure to dangerous 

chemicals and the health effects of these chemicals continues to 

mount. For example 66 percent of children live in counties that exceed allowable levels of at least one of the principal air pollutants 

that cause aggravated asthma—a significant problem for children, 

one that costs $3.2 billion in medical costs annually. 

EPA and the Federal Government took several bold steps in the 

late 1990s to make children’s environmental health a priority. In 

1996 EPA issued a National Agenda to protect children’s health 

from environmental threats. In April 1997 the President signed Executive Order 13045 that mandated a concerted Federal effort to 

address children’s environmental health and safety risks and established an Interagency Task Force to recommend strategies to the 

President for protecting children. 

Also in 1997 EPA created the Office of Children’s Health Protection and formed the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee. However, this early momentum waned through the last decade. Our report, while acknowledging some successes such as the 

increased margins of safety for pesticides and the creation of the 

National Children’s Study, concludes that EPA’s past efforts to institutionalize children’s health through its National Agenda and 

Strategic Plan have not been sustained. 

But EPA has not effectively engaged its Office of Children’s 

Health or proactively used its Children’s Health Advisory Committee, and the agency’s Interagency Task Force, which is largely 

responsible for the Federal Government’s early momentum on children’s health issues, was allowed to expire in 2005. 

We are encouraged that Administrator Jackson is attempting to 

refocus attention on children’s environmental health issues and believe that the strategy just discussed by Dr. Grevatt is a step in 

the right direction. However, we believe that to ensure progress 

EPA needs to implement changes in concrete and actionable ways 

to institutionalize its approach to children’s environmental health 

issues. 

To this end our report makes specific recommendations to EPA 

to include: No. 1, updating and reissuing a National Agenda to articulate current environmental health priorities and emerging 

issues; No. 2, identifying and tracking rulemaking and other actions to ensure that children’s health issues are fully considered; 

No. 3, ensuring that each new Strategic Plan expressly articulates 

children specific goals, objectives and targets; No. 4, reevaluating 

the mission of the Office of Children’s Health and ensuring that it 
48 

has the resources and organizational placement to carry out its 

mission; and No. 5, more proactively using the Children’s Health 

Protection Advisory Committee. 

We are pleased that EPA agreed with our recommendations but 

believe they must be successfully implemented if EPA is to incorporate protection of children’s health as an integral part of its everyday business. 

Finally, Madam Chairman, notwithstanding the actions that 

EPA can take on its own, leadership from outside the agency and 

across the Government will also be needed to protect children from 

current and emerging environmental threats. 

The President’s Task Force on Children’s Environmental Health 

that expired in 2005 was comprised of nine cabinet officials and 

seven White House office directors and was co-chaired by the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We believe that this task force provided the high level infrastructure needed to coordinate Federal research and strategies for 

addressing children’s environmental health concerns through nationwide initiatives like the National Children’s Study, a study that 

is examining the role of environmental factors on health and diseases in children from pre-birth to age 21. 

The Task Force documented this and other accomplishments and 

reported to the President, and in our review significantly enhanced 

the Nation’s ability to understand, analyze and respond to environmental health risks to children. Nearly every children’s health expert we talked to told us that the Task Force could help the Federal Government respond to national health and safety concerns 

such as recalls of toys and other children’s products. 

Our report recommends that the Task Force be reestablished. We 

are pleased that you are introducing legislation to do so, and we 

see this as a critical step for the Government to regain its momentum in comprehensively addressing children’s health issues. 

That concludes a summary of my statement, and I, too, will be 

happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:] 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Stephenson. 

Thank you for acknowledging the legislation that we are introducing. What do you see are some of the advantages of going beyond EPA and coordinating with other agencies as we want to do 

with this legislation? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, at least those 10 agencies that were on 

the Task Force certainly have roles in protecting children. The 

Consumer Product Safety Commission would be instrumental in 

things such as the toy recall. It could benefit from EPA’s scientific 

assessments of chemicals that are typically used in toys. So, it just 

created leadership across the Government and provided great momentum for addressing this issue that has kind of waned since it 

expired in 2005. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I was thinking about that when we had the 

latest toy issue with the cadmium in the jewelry, and how, when 

we had a previous hearing I asked about that, and the studies that 

were going on at EPA and just having that kind of coordination. 

It might not have been as much of a surprise as it appeared to be 

when suddenly there was this new problem that none of us had 

foreseen because we were so focused on the lead. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, too, we think that the regular reports to 

the President on this subject help keep the public informed about 

what the Government is doing to protect children as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I would just think that coordination might 

result in better legislation as you look at things, not just as a specific thing that comes to one agency, but overall. 

How can we create accountability and ensure that the EPA is following through on its stated goal to make children a priority at the 

agency since you guys are all about accountability? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, as Senator Lautenberg mentioned the 

National Agenda that guides EPA’s efforts in this area has not be 

updated for 10 years. I think EPA is getting there, but it is not documented yet. 

We think that such a document with clear research priorities, 

chemical risk assessment priorities and the like are critical to 

guide the agency, and we think that informs the public about what 

EPA is doing to protect children as well. And it sends a message 

across the program offices and regions at EPA as well to the fact 

that this is an important agenda of the Administrator. We think 

that the regular reports that they provided to the Administrator 

were also instrumental in keeping the momentum going. 

There are many things that we think need to be done. In the 

rulemaking process, we recommended better tracking mechanisms 

to show how children’s health issues are considered in rulemaking 

and standard setting and other actions that EPA takes. So, there 

is a whole variety of things specified in our report that we think 

will go a long way toward institutionalizing the addressing of children’s health issues at the agency. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Grevatt, what will the agency do to address the findings that 

are in the GAO report? 

Mr. GREVATT. We have already taken steps to begin addressing 

a number of the findings, and I appreciate very much—as we indicated in our comments to your draft report—that the recommenda-
67 

tions are sound. And so, for example, as I mentioned in my testimony, we are already working with other Federal agencies toward 

the reestablishment of the Interagency Task Force on Children’s 

Environmental Health and Safety, which we see as a critical step 

to helping the Nation to be able to address these key issues. 

The agency has improved its tracking system for regulations to 

help—to better capture children’s health issues, and I have significantly increased the focus of the office on rules and regulations 

that are being developed by the agency through my interaction 

with the Administrator and also with the senior career folks across 

the agency. I think we have an opportunity to increase the sort of 

reporting that you were talking about, the critical nature of that. 

We have—I have requested and have received an increase in resources to my office this year and in 2010 of five full-time equivalent employees being increased in the office, and then the President’s budget for 2011 includes a request for an additional 13 employees between my office and the regions to focus on healthy 

school environments. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And when you talk about healthy school environments, what do you mean by that? 

Mr. GREVATT. I mean to address the issues in schools that we 

think that can both impact children’s health in those schools as 

well as children’s academic performance in those schools. So, things 

like making sure the schools are dealing with moisture problems 

to prevent mold in the school environments to help reduce the possibility of children experiencing attacks in the school environment, 

making sure that when pesticides and cleaning products are used 

in school they are used safely so as to not inadvertently affect the 

children who are in those school environments, making sure there 

is adequate air exchange so that kids can be alert in their work 

and also protected from any kind of allergens other than mold that 

might cause asthma attacks in those school environments. So, 

those kinds of issues are all key to that work. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK, one specific question, and then I will 

turn it over to my colleague, Senator Udall, who has arrived. 

Dr. Grevatt, in your testimony you mentioned that EPA issued 

the Lead Renovation Repair and Painting Rule, which aims to provide broad protections against inadvertent lead poisoning by requiring contractors and construction professionals to be trained, 

certified and to use lead safe work practices during renovation, repair and painting in pre-1978 housing and childcare centers. 

There is broad agreement that these increased protections for 

children are necessary, but there is also some recent concern 

among consumer health organizations and people who do this type 

of work that there are not yet enough certified contractors to meet 

EPA’s requirement when this rule could take effect. 

I understand that EPA has less than 200 accredited trainers and 

less than 14,000 certified renovators nationwide. We are not quite 

at the 200,000 that we need to make this work. I did write a letter 

today to Administrator Jackson expressing concerns about implementing this rule next month, that we simply might not be ready 

yet, and it could not have the desired effect that we want, to reduce 

the lead and at the same time, because of the lack of the contrac-
68 

tors—the trained contractors—could hinder the home energy efficiency upgrades. 

Do you know what is EPA’s position is on this? That was a long 

question. 

Mr. GREVATT. It was a long question but a very important one. 

It is a tremendously important rule implementation; effecting implementation of that rule is tremendously important to protect children’s health in home environments and other environments where 

they spend time. The Administrator is well aware of this issue, and 

I was speaking with the Deputy Administrator about it yesterday, 

looking toward increasing opportunities and awareness of the contractors of the need to be trained for implementation of the rule. 

And I think there are a number of factors at play here. We think 

that we have enough trainers now to reach out to a large group of 

contractors across the country, but we think there is still an issue 

with increasing the awareness among the contracting community. 

It requires them to spend roughly a day in a training course with 

2 hours of hands-on training, and we are not getting the response 

from the contractor community that we need as yet. 

So, we are talking about specific ways of outreach in the near 

term, the very near term, to try to increase participation in the 

training and get those numbers up where they need to be. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, and I would suggest, just because we 

are working so hard with our stimulus and jobs package that, you 

know, perhaps some delay will be necessary with the immediate 

outreach and a different date because I am just concerned about 

these numbers so far. But that is something that I know you will 

be discussing at the EPA. 

Mr. GREVATT. That is right. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Senator Udall, I see you are wearing green. I forgot to. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am wearing green. 

Somehow, I managed to remember this morning. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You are very organized. You must be part 

of a coordinated green interagency task force. 

Senator UDALL. No, I happened to see Senator Leahy last night 

in black tie on the floor, and I said, what is going on there, and 

they said he is going to the dinner. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Oh, and then that made you remember. 

You did good. It is sort of an interagency theme. OK. There you go. 

[Laugher.] 

Senator UDALL. Anyway, Madam Chair, thank you very much, 

and thank you for focusing on this issue. I know you have a real 

passion for children’s issues and children’s health, and I look forward to really working with you on this Committee to achieve some 

good goals. 

This question is for both Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Grevatt. The 

EPA’s National Agenda to protect children’s health from environmental threats came out in 1996. That same year Congress reauthorized the Safe Water Drinking Act with a focus on cost-benefit 

analysis. Since 1996 the EPA has issued few new drinking water 

standards. 

Under the previous Administration EPA decided not to regulate 

perchlorate, an ingredient for explosives that harms the thyroids of 
69 

pregnant women. What are the challenges of incorporating the special health effects of children in the Safe Water Drinking Act? Either one of you, jump in there. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I will defer to Dr. Grevatt on that. 

Mr. GREVATT. OK. Thank you very much. A very important 

issue, perchlorate in particular, but more broadly, addressing contaminants in drinking water. And we are—I think you are aware 

that within the last year EPA reevaluated the health risks related 

to perchlorate and issued an updated risk assessment for perchlorate for public review. And at this point the Administrator is 

considering what decision to make specifically with regard to possibly regulating perchlorate as a contaminant in drinking water. 

But more broadly the Safe Drinking Water Act, in addition to requiring a cost-benefit analysis, does require consideration of vulnerable populations for drinking water contaminants, including 

children. And we will be working very closely with the Drinking 

Water Office as well as other offices across the agency and their 

own regulatory actions to make sure that children’s health 

vulnerabilities are considered through any rulemaking activities 

that will address drinking water contaminants. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. The only thing I would add is that we do have 

some ongoing work on perchlorate right now as an emerging contaminant in drinking water, and I believe this Committee is one of 

the requesters for that report, which will be out later this year. It 

does not single out children’s health issues, but it will talk about 

the problems that EPA has and the length of time that it takes to 

do chemical risk assessments in general. Perchlorate, for example, 

has been studied for over a decade now. And we may have some 

specific recommendations on the issue of chemical risk assessment 

coming out of that report. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Stephenson, you recently testified at our Committee regarding efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, which is 

clearly out of date, at best, and possibly fatally flawed. The question for both of you is which of the proposed reforms to this law 

have the most potential to provide an extra buffer zone of protection for children: biomonitoring, risk screening of chemicals, increased data for producers, or increased authority to restrict chemicals? Or does this require a comprehensive approach? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. All of the above, a comprehensive approach. 

The biomonitoring data will tell you what chemical exists in the 

blood, but it does not tell you the causes or the likely health effects 

of that data. But biomonitoring is an important element to help 

prioritize which risk assessments are needed. We have not looked 

at all the various proposals to amend TSCA but have been studying 

the issue for 5 or 6 years and are definitely in support of amending 

TSCA and giving it more teeth and strength for the Agency and requiring more by the chemical industry in regards to proving that 

its chemicals are safe before they are introduced into commerce. 

Mr. GREVATT. And thank you. If I may, I agree with Mr. 

Stephenson’s comments on that. I think any one of the factors that 

you mentioned there would help, but without the full suite of those 

I think it would be very difficult for us to move forward in the way 

that we need to on TSCA implementation. And the Administrator, 
70 

Administrator Jackson, issued recently her key themes that she 

thought were important in TSCA reform, and we are very supportive of moving forward in this area. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

There is a continuing push by business and industrial interests 

to include more and more cost-benefit analysis in environmental 

regulation. How is that effort compatible with children’s environmental health, which may not be as easily quantified? 

Mr. GREVATT. I am sorry, but I am not sure if that is a question 

for me or for both of us. 

Senator UDALL. Jump in if you both want. You have, I am running out of time, so—— 

Mr. GREVATT. OK. Thank you very much. I think that it is important for us to focus on cost-benefit analysis related to children’s 

environmental health, but the emphasis I would put there is doing 

a better job of understanding the costs associated with childhood 

impacts and the benefits associated with taking actions to prevent 

those impacts. So in particular I think there is more work that we 

could be doing there to better capture the benefits of steps that we 

take to protect kids from environmental contaminants. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I think this is a place where you can use the 

Children’s Health Advisory Committee as well. There are several 

new members, including a new Chairperson, resulting in about half 

of the Committee being new. They are convening the new Committee later this month. EPA can ask them to use their expertise, 

which includes industry representation, academic representation, 

and special interests to address questions regarding the compatibility of cost-benefit analysis with environmental regulations related to children’s health. That is why they are there. So, I think 

they can help EPA better determine how to consider children’s 

health issues in that manner. 

Senator UDALL. I thank both of the witness and the Chair. 

Thank you for your courtesy for letting me run over a little bit. I 

am sorry I cannot stay for the whole hearing. I think this is a very, 

very important subject. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

One last question, Dr. Grevatt. As you know there is finally some 

movement afoot to do something on childhood obesity. It has been 

dormant. And as our recesses have gotten shorter, and our attention, I think, has gotten shorter, our kids’ waistlines have gotten 

larger. And we just have not been devoting the attention we need 

to it. As you know a third of kids that now graduate from high 

school are obese or overweight and a fourth are obese going into 

elementary school. 

The Child Nutrition Act, as I mentioned, is being introduced 

today. That is one thing. And as we go into some of the education 

work that will be done this summer I think we should be looking 

at recess and gym time as a piece of that. We have our Complete 

Streets Bill here where we are trying to move on community planning and things that more is done to incentivize and encourage 

walking. But I just wondered what EPA is doing as part of this effort. 

I just see it as huge money for taxpayers. You know, we are financing—for very good reasons and necessary reasons—not just 
71 

school lunches and breakfasts but also Pre-K, the Childcare Program, 3 million of these kids are getting food every day. And one 

of the most amazing things to me, I introduced a bill on this this 

week with Senator Harkin; it is now being included in the Child 

Nutrition Standard. 

I just want to make sure you know this. They are really not just 

standards at all for these childcare meals. And yet we are paying 

for it, the taxpayers are. One out of three kids, a recent study 

showed that kids in these childcare programs do not even have a 

fruit or a vegetable all day and that the most common vegetable 

is french fries. And if you think about what we are giving these 

kids, it is just not right. And so this is something that I really believe has to be changed. 

I have seen it in my daughter’s own schools. The difference between being in a sort of a different demographic with parents with 

more money, these kids are bringing carrots and celery in their 

lunches, and then at the other school she was in for 3 years with 

90 percent free and reduced lunch, these kids are, you know, choosing the Twinkie line and the french fries instead of the yogurt in 

these a` la cart lines. And it seems to me the kids we are hurting 

most are the kids who are the most vulnerable and who need the 

most help during the school day. And it has to change. 

So, I just wondered what EPA, what you are doing in this regard, 

as part of this big focus of the First Lady’s, which I truly appreciate. 

Mr. GREVATT. Senator, thank you very much, and I appreciate 

your leadership on this critical issue. And childhood obesity certainly has the potential to lead to the current generation of children being the first generation in American history who may have 

a shorter life expectancy than their parents. So, this is a critical 

issue for us to address. 

As a part of the Interagency Task Force on Childhood Obesity, 

EPA is an active participant. All the key players are there focusing 

on physical activity, focusing on the built environment, focusing on 

food availability and food nutrition guidelines, school lunches, and 

a variety of other issues that intersect with obesity in some ways 

that may not be obvious, including the intersection between childhood asthma and childhood obesity and the intersection between 

some chemical factors that may lead to infant obesity. 

So, EPA is an active player in this area. And I think you are 

aware that the President’s memorandum on childhood obesity that 

established the Task Force gave us a 90-day timeframe to produce 

a report, a comprehensive report from across the Federal Government, on key steps that will be taken to address childhood obesity 

and eliminate childhood obesity within a generation. EPA is an active participant in that effort, and we will remain so. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Very good. 

Well, thank you very much. This has been informative. I especially liked the question part. I mean, the testimony was not bad, 

but you know. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think we got some very useful information 

on the focus here, and I thank both of you. And now we will bring 

up the second panel. Thank you. 
72 

Very good. We are pleased to have the second panel here. Our 

first witness will be Gina Solomon, a doctor who is the Associate 

Director of the University of California in San Francisco Pediatric 

Environmental Health Specialty Unit and the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health at the University of California at 

Berkeley. Second, we have Cynthia Bearer, also a doctor, who is 

the Chief of Neonatology at the University of Maryland School of 

Medicine. And then, finally, we have Dr. Ted Schettler, who is the 

Science Director for the Science and Environmental Health Network. Thank you all for being here. 

Dr. Solomon. 

STATEMENT OF GINA M. SOLOMON, M.D., M.P.H., SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PEDIATRIC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

SPECIALTY UNIT; ASSOCIATE CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF 

MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO 

Dr. SOLOMON. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the 

Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. They come and go. We have actually had 

very good attendance. I am excited. 

Dr. SOLOMON. I think that it is a great testament to this topic, 

and I am very glad to be here to testify today. 

I am a physician. I am also a Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at UCSF, and I do work with the UCSF Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit. 

One of the most frequent questions that I hear from my patients 

is: What can I do to protect myself and my family from chemical 

contaminants in our air, water and food? And I always find it difficult to answer that question because most hazards to children 

and families are not things that individuals can really protect 

themselves from, even with advice from their physician. Really it 

is the responsibility of Government agencies such as the EPA to 

ensure that our air and our water are safe for pregnant women and 

children. 

Decades of scientific evidence have accumulated demonstrating 

that children are more susceptible to contaminants in their environment. And in the 1990s the President and the EPA recognized 

that evidence and took important actions including Executive 

Order 13045, which we have heard about, the National Agenda to 

Protect Children’s Health, and the creation of the Office of Children’s Health Protection. 

Congress recognized the overwhelming evidence on children’s 

susceptibility when it passed child protective language in the Food 

Quality Protection Act. And for the first time EPA was actually required to incorporate an additional 10-fold margin of safety to protect children from pesticide residues on food and in particular was 

required to do that if there were data gaps. 

So, this approach would seem to be a model for how to protect 

children. But in the last 14 years since then a couple of problems 

have become apparent. One of those is that the law applied only 

to pesticides, and to this day there are no legal requirements that 
73 

EPA actually protect children’s health from other industrial chemicals including chemicals that are known to disproportionately affect 

fetuses and children such as bisphenol A, phthalates, brominated 

flame retardants, and even arsenic. 

And the second problem is that EPA failed to honor even the directive of the Food Quality Protection Act. I was on an NAS committee which reported in 2006 on EPA pesticide assessments. They 

looked at 59 pesticides with assessments posted on EPA’s Web site 

and EPA failed to apply the child protective factor for 48 of the 59 

and only applied the full 10-fold factor to five chemicals despite the 

presence of widespread data gaps on many of these chemicals. 

In more recent years there have been problems at EPA with 

their approach to protecting children from carcinogens, and that is 

diametrically different to the situation in California where California considers children to be more sensitive to all carcinogens unless shown otherwise. Instead EPA currently limits child protective 

considerations to chemicals with a mutagenic mode of action, and 

in their framework document sets such a high standard of proof for 

mutagenic mode of action that it is basically unachievable for most 

carcinogens, and the net result is the child protective factor is not 

likely to apply to the vast majority of cancer causing substances. 

I am encouraged to hear that EPA may revisit this policy because 

it clearly needs to be changed. 

The biggest threat to children’s health, however, in my opinion, 

may not be from the chemicals we already know about, the carcinogens we already know about, but from what we do not know because we are dealing with the unfortunate reality that most of the 

chemicals in our air and our water and even our children’s toys, 

as you well know, have not really been tested or have not been 

tested at all for their toxicity. 

So I am not just talking here about testing for effects on infant 

development but in fact for all kinds of health effects: genetic damage, neurologic damage, hormonal effects, and allergic reactions. 

Basic safety assessments of all chemicals, not just pesticides, are 

needed in order to protect children. Only with broader chemical 

policy reform will parents be able to sleep soundly at night knowing that their children are safe. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Solomon follows:] 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Dr. Solomon. 

Dr. Bearer. 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA BEARER, M.D., PH.D., FAAP, DIVISION CHIEF, NEONATOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 

SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH NETWORK BOARD CHAIR 

Dr. BEARER. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

I am a practicing neonatologist, which means that I take care of 

the sickest of the babies, the newborn babies. I am also a wife and 

mother, and my son, Matthew, is in the audience today. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Welcome, Matthew. Where are you? I can 

tell you want me to call you out. You are lucky I did not make you 

stand. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. BEARER. I am currently Professor and Division Chief of 

Neonatology at the University of Maryland, and I am here today, 

though, as the Chair of the Board of the Children’s Environmental 

Health Network. 

The Network commends Senators Boxer and Inhofe for holding 

this hearing and to you for running it today and for their ongoing 

interest in environmental risks to children. 

I ask that my full statement be submitted for the record. 

The Network’s mission is to promote a healthy environment and 

to protect the fetus and child from environmental health hazards. 

I urge the Committee to embrace its role in ensuring that all children grow up in healthy environments. I will discuss three overarching tenets. 

My first tenet is that the basic scientific facts of pediatric environmental health need to be incorporated into the policies and programs in this Committee’s jurisdiction. Children, as we heard this 

morning, are not just little adults. They have unique vulnerabilities 

and susceptibilities. Because their systems are developing an exposure that causes little or no damage to adults may lead to irreversible damage to children and the adults they become. 

Children are exposed every day to a mix of chemicals, most of 

them untested for their effects on developing systems, as Dr. Solomon just noted. Policymakers could—and must—do a better job of 

assessing the role that environmental toxicants have on affecting 

the current and future health of developing human beings. The 

predominant and worrisome assumption is that potential hazards 

are innocent until proven guilty. 

One example is bisphenol A, or BPA, which is widely used in consumer products. Only recently have scientific studies shown that 

BPA causes harm. These studies have come long after massive population exposure has already occurred, with more than 90 percent 

of our citizens having BPA in their bodies. As a result of these reports BPA is being phased out of products used in the neonatal intensive care unit at the University of Maryland Hospital for Children. 

BPA is just one chemical that is ubiquitous in our environment 

and in our bodies. Parents understandably ask, how did we allow 

these substances to get into our children’s bodies when we know so 

little about them? I do not know how to answer them. 
91 

Most industrial chemicals are regulated through the Toxic Substance Control Act, or TSCA, which was enacted in 1976. However, 

EPA comprehensively regulates very few chemicals under TSCA. 

We need to protect the health of children through our chemical regulatory decisions. 

My second tenet is that children’s health and healthy children 

must be an ongoing priority for this and every Administration. A 

series of forward looking policies were adopted in the 1990s. Over 

time their original successes have stalled. Previously, leadership of 

an Interagency Task Force by the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of DHHS galvanized efforts across the Government. We need 

such a catalyst again in order to regain momentum. 

The Network believes that key components of the 1997 Executive 

Order on Children’s Environmental Health, such as the Interagency Task Force that it created, should be put into statute. Such 

legislation must also ensure that other key agencies handling 

childcare and related issues, most notably the Department of Education, are actively engaged. 

I want to highlight the importance of the EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection in this process. The Network feels that it 

must have a robust presence within EPA in steering policy and 

science initiatives for the good of protecting children. Their advisory committee, the CHPAC, plays a critical role in providing advice and feedback to the EPA. 

My third tenet is that protection of children’s environmental 

health must occur indoors. One focus on interior environments such 

as homes, childcare centers and schools is necessary. For example 

little is known about the environmental health status of our 

childcare centers where 60 percent of children from 1 month to 5 

years of age spend more than 40 hours per week. Most people do 

not know that there is no agency authorized to intervene to protect 

children from environmental hazards in daycares, pre-schools or 

schools. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration does not 

protect pre-school or school children. Thus every day we require or 

children to spend hours in environments that are not required to 

be healthy and where they and their parents have no options, alternatives or recourse. 

The Network also commends the EPA for its existing healthy 

school activities. We are especially supportive of the proposed 

Clean, Green and Healthy Schools Initiative. If we work to ensure 

that the many environments that make up our children’s world are 

healthy and promote well-being we will improve the health of our 

children and the adults they will become. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bearer follows:] 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Dr. Bearer. 

Dr. Schettler. 

STATEMENT OF TED SCHETTLER, M.D., M.P.H., SCIENCE DIRECTOR, SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK 

Dr. SCHETTLER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank 

you for the opportunity to testify here today. 

I am Ted Schettler, and I am the Science Director of the Science 

and Environmental Health Network. I am a physician, and I also 

have training in public health and environmental medicine. 

We have heard from a number of people today that developing 

children are uniquely vulnerable to environmental exposures. I 

would like to add to that that early life exposures can also increase 

the risk of chronic degenerative diseases in adulthood so that while 

we are protecting our children, we are also lowering the risk of disease later in life. 

We have also heard that during the 1990s it appeared that EPA 

was taking steps to address many of the unique aspects of children’s environmental health, but since then some of these efforts 

have fallen short. I would like to just add two examples from my 

own experience to illustrate this. 

The first has to do with the potential for some commonly encountered chemicals to disrupt the function of hormones and other 

chemical messengers that are important during child development. 

These chemicals are called endocrine disrupters. 

During the 1980s and 1990s it became apparent that reproduction and development of many species of wildlife were being affected by exposures to these chemicals, and laboratory findings confirmed these outcomes. Many scientists then began to wonder 

whether the increasing incidence of cancer of the testes, prostate, 

breast, birth defects of the male reproductive tract, lower sperm 

counts, behavioral disorders and other abnormalities in humans 

might be explained in part by similar exposures. 

So, in 1996 the EPA created the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 

and Testing Advisory Committee in response to a congressional 

mandate, and the EPA was directed to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances may have endocrine 

disrupting effects. This was supposed to be implemented by 1999. 

I served on that Advisory Committee, and we delivered consensus 

recommendations by the statutory deadline in 1998. 

Unfortunately, thereafter EPA missed deadline after deadline 

and became bogged down in an endless set of validation exercises 

that remain unfinished today. Meanwhile, thousands of chemicals 

in consumer products, food, water and air have not been tested for 

endocrine disrupting properties. 

Recently, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association and the American Chemical Society have called for reducing 

exposure to endocrine disruptors as well as more rapid advancement of the screening program. Sadly, the EPA is a decade late, 

and we are still waiting. 

My concerns about human exposures to commonly encountered 

chemicals are not limited, however, to endocrine disruptors. As we 

have also heard flaws in the Toxic Substances Control Act have al-
102 

lowed thousands of untested chemicals to remain in commerce with 

limited or no toxicity information. 

A second example is the failure of EPA to require adequate evaluation of the impact of pesticides and other chemicals on brain development. The agency has the authority to require those data from 

pesticide registrants but historically has been reluctant. 

In the 1990s, the EPA finally asked for developmental 

neurotoxicity testing of a group of pesticides called 

organophosphates, which are notoriously toxic to the brain. But if 

we thought that we were finally going to see more regular requirements for this information we were sadly disappointed in 2007 

when EPA registered the fumigant methyl iodide for use without 

it. This chemical is an extremely toxic chemical. It causes severe 

nervous system toxicity in adults who are accidentally exposed. Unfortunately, effects on the developing brain have never been studied. 

In my written testimony I have described why I and others believe we must be concerned. EPA’s rationale for not requiring the 

data on this pesticide is based on an untested hypothesis for which 

there is little evidence. 

The Department of Pesticide Regulation in California carried out 

its own risk assessment of methyl iodide and set it out for external 

review by a scientific review committee. In its final report that 

committee not only expressed concern about the likelihood of 

human exposure when this chemical is used in agriculture but also 

said—and I am quoting—an equally important element in our review was the data that we would have wished to assess but that 

was insufficient or nonexistent altogether. The lacunae in our 

knowledge about methyl iodide are particularly wide and deep in 

relation to key aspects of its potential toxicity such as 

neurodevelopmental effects. That is the end of the quote. 

Wide and deep data gaps with respect to this chemical’s effect on 

the developing brain. Yet the EPA registered it for use. 

So, in conclusion, some efforts to protect children’s health that 

were taking hold seem to have slowed and even been abandoned. 

Developing children continue to be exposed to environmental 

chemicals without adequate safety assessment, many of these 

under the authority of the EPA. Meaningful TSCA reform and 

EPA’s exercise of its existing authority are essential in order to 

protect developing children—and really people of all ages—from the 

impacts of exposure to hazardous chemicals. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Schettler follows:] 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. And thank you for 

sort of bringing this down to the real world level and the kids that 

you deal with in your work. I was listening to this thinking of— 

I had not related this, but of my own experience when my daughter 

was born. She could not swallow for a year and a half, and no one 

could figure out what was wrong. We still do not know what was 

wrong. She somehow snapped out of it after being on a feeding 

tube, and I spent many weeks in the neonatology unit and things 

like that. 

When I look back on that time now, because she is an amazing 

kid and she has no permanent thing, there was nothing genetic, I 

always think about time is a gift. One, it gave me a sense of what 

parents with kids with disabilities go through. But two, it made me 

always wonder was I exposed to something when I was pregnant? 

What happened? How did this happen? And how did she suddenly 

snap out of it when it was not a permanent problem? 

I know a lot of parents dealing with kids with autism and other 

things that just daily wonder the same thing as we see these sudden increases in certain diseases and do not know what they are. 

That is one of the things that drive so many families to want to 

see that research and just feeling so alone out there, you know, 

surfing the Internet, coming up with theories that make no sense 

because they read them on a blog, when we should be looking at 

these scientifically, and we should be getting the data collected. 

So, I want to tell you how I know that I and so many families 

share that frustration that we are not getting the data, Dr. 

Schettler, that you are talking about. 

So my question, first of all, is how do you think, in the ideal 

world, this Interagency Task Force could work to try to better 

share things? And what do you think, as we look at, you know, difficult budget times for Government, what do you think the most 

cost effective way and where should our focus really be as we look 

at all the myriad of potential problems we have here? 

I know those are two big questions. The first would be how the 

Interagency Task Force could be better coordinated, and I guess 

the second would be how we could do this most cost efficiently and 

what our focus should be. 

I guess, Dr. Bearer, that I will begin with you because I mentioned you. You can all three answer it. 

Dr. BEARER. Thank you. I see the Interagency Task Force as 

being able to link across agencies various pockets of pediatric environmental health. For example the biomonitoring programs at CDC 

to be linked to EPA’s list of priorities for chemicals that need to 

be studied, to the NIH where research dollars need to be spent in 

order to assess the toxicity of the chemicals. 

I also see it as a clearinghouse for research and initiatives of 

what is actually going on right now. There is no place where you 

can go to find out what research is actually being done. And I see 

the Interagency Task Force as being important in collecting and organizing and making publicly available what research is actually 

happening. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Dr. Solomon. 
117 

Dr. SOLOMON. In addition to coordinating with agencies such as 

CDC for chemicals that are in food contact materials and in consumer products, such as known endocrine disrupters like bisphenol 

A and phthalates, we are finding that FDA and CPSC have very 

major regulatory roles and yet often do not have the same 

toxicologic approach or expertise in those chemical areas as EPA. 

And it is really important also to have consistency. We saw this 

as a problem when EPA and FDA were publicly disagreeing a number of years ago about levels of mercury that are safe for women 

of reproductive age, and very recently FDA, EPA and NIEHS sort 

of came together around bisphenol A, and they are trying to come 

to a common ground. So, it is very, very important to avoid conflicting standards or conflicting messages to the public as well. 

But I also think in terms of priorities, you know, all three of us 

mentioned chemical policy reform. It really is a huge, huge 

issue—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You are talking about TSCA? 

Dr. SOLOMON. Yes, TSCA is the main issue area where we are 

dealing with both enormous data gaps that impair all of us as physicians from being able to provide information to patients and communities and also the problem that EPA does not have the authority it needs to take regulatory action even when there is evidence 

showing harm to developing organisms and children. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. When you think about all the new products 

and changes in our society and the fact that it has not been updated for so long, it clearly cries out for some changes. 

Dr. SOLOMON. Exactly. The science has moved forward; there is 

a lot of information from the National Academy of Sciences to go 

with, and that really is something that needs action soon. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

Dr. Schettler. 

Dr. SCHETTLER. I would agree with the need for coordination 

across the agencies and do not have more to add to that. It is important that we not sort of Balkanize this and fail to look at it comprehensively. 

With respect to the second question, the issue of cost effectiveness, I would agree first of all with the importance of TSCA reform, 

and some of the elements of that have to include that chemical 

manufacturers need to be responsible for evaluating the safety of 

their products. I mean, this should not fall on the public to do that 

after the fact. So, it should be, you know, pre-market testing is required. If you are going to stay on the market, we need safety data. 

But I also would like to add a little more to this idea of cost and 

benefits which came up in the first panel. We know that a lot of 

the childhood conditions that we are concerned about today are setting the stage for an overwhelming wave of disease and disability 

that is coming down, that is going to overwhelm us in the next several decades. 

As was pointed out in the first panel, childhood obesity itself is 

a risk factor for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline, 

dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. And I am not certain what we 

are going to do about this. And at a time when we are talking 

about healthcare reform in this country we should be really looking 

at what is coming as we try to figure out primary preventive strat-
118 

egies to try to prevent this flood of chronic disease that is coming 

along. 

So when we are doing our cost-benefit analysis, let us look at the 

whole picture, and let us look at it over time and see how we are 

going to be dealing with that decades from now as well as in the 

shorter term. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Thank you. 

I just want to ask a few specific questions with some work that 

I am doing, legislation that we are working on. I mentioned formaldehyde. And there is a huge problem of some of these wood products coming over, primarily from overseas, because our own timber 

industry has agreed to some standards voluntarily. But yet we are 

seeing—there is the whole trailer issue down in Katrina and those 

things of formaldehyde in these woods. 

That is why Senator Crapo and I have a bill that basically follows the California Standards, Dr. Solomon. And I can tell you it 

was quite interesting to stand with our timber industry in Minnesota at a Home Depot where we were supporting this bill to take 

up the California standards nationally and having the industry 

people talking about how they wanted the California standards. 

You can bring that home with you. 

But because of the fact that these wood products are coming in 

with formaldehyde, and they are unfairly competing with our own 

American timber, that is actually in wood products that are actually abiding by these higher standards. I just wondered if any of 

you—and I do not expect all of you could comment on the formaldehyde issue with kids. 

Dr. SOLOMON. I am happy to comment because I have been in 

numerous of those FEMA trailers. I spent a lot of time in New Orleans after Katrina. I talked with families who lived in FEMA trailers for months or even years and heard first-hand from them about 

the symptoms that they were suffering from, ranging from increased rates of asthma to just constant nagging irritation of the 

upper airways and constant headaches. This would have been so 

preventable, so avoidable. 

I think that there is a broad concern about voluntary agreements 

that is raised by this issue because a voluntary agreement is good 

as long as everyone abides by it. But in this age of global commerce 

it is very hard to get the entire industry—especially internationally—on board. 

We are seeing that more recently with the flame retardants 

where there have been voluntary agreements with U.S. manufacturers of these polybrominated diphenylether flame retardants, 

PBDEs, to take them off the market. But I personally am very concerned that we are going to still be seeing them in imports from 

other countries. So this is why Congress needs to take action and 

why EPA also needs to take regulatory action and not count on voluntary agreements to protect the public. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. 

Cadmium in jewelry, speaking of imports, anyone have any familiarity with that the effect on kids? No one? OK. That is all 

right. I think I have asked the EPA about this in the past, so I appreciate that. 
119 

Other things that we have been working on are radon and the 

effect on children of that. We are putting together a bill in that 

area. And then, as you know, Senator Boxer has been a leader on 

perchlorate monitoring and the Right to Know Act and has done 

a lot in that area. 

So, there are a lot of specific things that we are working on that 

I cannot help but think cry out for action about having this Interagency Task Force where we are drawing these resources together, 

as you say, for research, which will really help us in Congress so 

that when we move ahead in one area, we are not just doing one 

little thing, maybe we should be doing three things at the same 

time. I think it will be very helpful if we could get that Task Force 

going. 

Is there anything anyone else would like to add today? 

Dr. SCHETTLER. I would like to add one more comment. Thank 

you for the opportunity. 

As I listened to the discussion about perchlorate and about formaldehyde and air pollution I think it is important for us to keep in 

mind that we are not exposed to these various contaminants one 

at a time, but we are exposed to mixtures. And it occurs in a social 

and an economic environment which may cause either more or less 

vulnerability. This is all fairly well outlined in the National Academy of Sciences’ report on science and decisions. But these are very 

real issues. 

So, people are not just exposed to perchlorate. In farming communities, for example, there is going to be nitrate in the water at 

the same time. There may be women who have inadequate iodine 

intake in their diet. Thirty percent of women in the United States 

are estimated to have suboptimal intakes of dietary iodine, making 

them more susceptible to the effects of perchlorate and nitrate in 

terms of being able to produce enough thyroid hormone for their 

baby to develop in utero. So, we need to think about these things 

collectively. 

Similarly, children who are exposed to formaldehyde and air pollution who also happen to be living in suboptimal socioeconomic environments are more likely to develop asthma as a result of those 

exposures because the social environment creates vulnerability. 

So, these do need to be looked at through sort of this interagency 

comprehensive approach that will recognize that there are vulnerable populations of people among the general population who do 

need to be protected. 

Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Thank you. 

Dr. Solomon. We usually do not do this at the end, but you know, 

you are up here, and it is just me, so add your final comments 

here. 

Dr. SOLOMON. Thank you for the opportunity for a final comment. 

I have served on a number of EPA advisory committees over the 

years, including the Drinking Water Committee, and have been 

frustrated at how long it takes from the time when there is enough 

scientific information to take action to when action actually occurs. 

And perchlorate is an excellent example of a chemical that has 

been under study for well over a decade and where there is ex-
120 

tremely strong information about exactly what it does in the 

human body and enough data, even in humans, on which to take 

action. And yet this chemical has not been regulated yet. 

I have seen the same thing with numerous industrial chemicals. 

It was a decade ago that the Science Advisory Board reviewed the 

trichloroethylene risk assessment and recommended that it be finalized as soon as possible. But a decade has passed, and it is now 

undergoing another round of review. 

That is the type of pattern that tends to occur, and one of the 

things that will be important with TSCA reform will be to get out 

of that endless loop of repetitive, interminable risk assessments. 

We certainly also saw it with dioxin, another ongoing example. 

So, EPA really does need not only the authority but in fact the 

responsibility to take rapid action when there is information, scientific evidence, showing harm to children’s health. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Dr. BEARER. I would really like to say that I think the National 

Children’s Study should go forward to generate some of this data 

because not only has Dr. Schettler noted that we are exposed to 

mixtures, but we are exposed over time. And with children that can 

be important for setting them up to future vulnerability following 

a previous chemical exposure. 

So, until we understand this complex play of determinants on 

our health but occurring over time in our children I do not think 

we will have a good idea of what is actually impacting our health. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

Well thank you, all of you. This has been very enlightening, and 

I think you have seen a number of Senators that came by today 

who are similarly devoted to moving forward on this. I know the 

EPA is, and I appreciate the GAO work as well in looking at this 

and stepping back and looking at how we can do better. 

I wanted to note that Senator Boxer, I think she talked to me 

about this hearing five times in the last 24 hours. She really had 

wanted to be here and cares a lot about this. She has been a true 

leader on this issue. She even caught me in the hallway and said 

you are going to be 5 minutes late. She would be here, but as you 

know there is a lot going on right now in the U.S. Senate, and so 

she was needed elsewhere to work on some very time sensitive 

issues. I know she wanted to be specifically here to greet you, Dr. 

Solomon. 

I am going to put her statement on the record and also the GAO 

report on Environmental Threats to Children, as well as the EPA’s 

1996 National Agenda on Children’s Health. So, without objection, 

those things will be included in the record. 

And we look forward to working with all of you this important 

issue as we go ahead. 

Thank you very much, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the full Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Children are more vulnerable to toxic pollution than adults. Their bodies are developing rapidly—including their brains, hearts and lungs, their nervous and im-
121 

mune systems—so exposures to toxic chemicals at critical times in their development can have lifelong impacts. 

That’s why I wrote the law that ensures that the EPA takes children and other 

vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women and the elderly, into account when 

setting drinking water standards, not just healthy adult men. 

And that is why I asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the EPA’s role in protecting children’s health and to give me a report card 

on how the Federal Government is doing in keeping our children safe from environmental dangers. 

As the GAO has said in its report, ‘‘Children face disproportionate health risks 

from environmental contaminants such as pollution in air, lead paint in homes, pesticide residues on food, and treatment resistant microbes in drinking water. Such 

hazards contribute to asthma, cancer, neurodevelopmental disorders, and other diseases, and many of the Nation’s 74 million children are exposed to them daily.’’ 

Senator Klobuchar joined me in this request as Chair of this Committee’s Subcommittee on Children’s Health. Today we are releasing GAO’s final report, the culmination of an in-depth 2-year investigation. Based on GAO’s report I am very concerned that EPA has not followed through on its initial commitment in the late 

1990s to make children a priority with the creation of the Office of Children’s 

Health and other steps designed to put kids first. 

The GAO report paints a clear picture: 

First, the GAO found that EPA has not focused attention on children’s health in 

agency-wide priorities, strategies, and rulemakings. 

GAO also found that EPA has not fully utilized its Office of Children’s Health 

Protection and other child-focused resources. 

At the same time, GAO concluded that opportunities exist for EPA to lead and 

coordinate national efforts to protect children from environmental threats. The current Administration has begun the task of returning the focus to children as a central mission of the agency. I applaud these efforts, but there is much more work 

to do. 

I am working on a bill with Senator Klobuchar that would authorize an interagency task force geared toward protecting children’s health from environmental 

threats. This task force was originally put in place by President Clinton in an Executive Order, but the task force lapsed, and we want to make sure that the work 

of this important group is made permanent. 

I am also working with Senator Bill Nelson, who is here to testify today, on legislation to strengthen the EPA role in investigating cancer, birth defects, and other 

disease clusters that may be associated with environmental toxins. 

Communities that experience unusual increases in birth defects, cancers and 

other diseases, especially in children, should get more help from the Federal Government, including EPA, in getting to the root of the problem. In my home State 

we have a community in Kettleman City that is working with the State of California 

to investigate the reason for the level of birth defects, and Senator Nelson will talk 

about a community in Florida and their efforts to determine the cause of the childhood brain cancers being experienced there. Senator Nelson and I would like to 

make sure these communities and others like them around the country can get the 

help they need so they can get answers quickly. 

The goal of this oversight hearing today, as well as the legislative efforts we have 

underway, is very straightforward. Protecting children’s health must be central to 

EPA’s mission across the board, and the Agency must specifically remedy the deficiencies identified by the GAO when it comes to this critical issue. Our legislative 

efforts are designed to accomplish the same thing—to ensure the health and safety 

of children in communities across the country. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I am a father and grandfather, so obviously protecting the health of children, born 

and unborn, is a personal priority. The best way to protect children’s health is to 

use the best available science to properly assess risk. In some cases, children can 

be more susceptible, in other cases less susceptible, and in many cases equally susceptible to environmental exposures when compared to adults. On a body weight 

basis children can have greater exposure than adults, but not always. EPA takes 

these susceptibility differentials into account when assessing potential risks to children. 

This follow up GAO investigation into efforts to protect children’s health suggests 

to us, among other things, that the Agency has not fully used the Office of Chil-
122 

dren’s Health Protection and has not prioritized children’s health considerations in 

light of advisory recommendations. 

However, what the report does not fully address is the fact that EPA must always 

balance recommendations on children’s health with objective scientific standards, 

legal requirements, and practical realities. For instance we have been told that EPA 

should incorporate more of the recommendations of children’s health advisory 

groups into Agency actions. But advisory groups do not have to base their recommendations on risk: they can base their opinion on the use of precaution. They 

do not have to balance economic impacts and resource limitations: Federal agencies 

do. And advisory groups almost never address whether the Federal Government 

should be or actually is authorized to regulate all issues suggested by their recommendations. 

So, while EPA always takes advisory recommendations very seriously the Agency 

must independently review advisory findings and balance these opinions with the 

other factors that direct rulemaking and guide policy management. 

Elements of GAO’s report are instructive, and I look forward to hearing more. I 

especially agree with the report’s favorable view of the National Children’s Study. 

The National Children’s Study will fortify the Government’s commitment to the 

health and well-being of children—bringing together the top experts on children’s 

health and the environment. The Study is the largest long-term study of environmental and genetic influences on children’s health ever conducted in the United 

States. It will follow 100,000 children from before birth to age 21. Researchers will 

better understand how children’s interactions with their environments affect their 

health and development. 

But in contrast to what some of the witnesses will say today I do not believe that 

EPA needs additional congressional authority to specifically protect children’s 

health. Rather I believe that EPA has the existing authority and processes in place 

to build upon ongoing Federal efforts to properly protect children’s health. That 

said, I look forward to hearing your perspectives and welcome you to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Madam Chairman, I want to take a few moments to talk about the health of the 

children of Libby, Montana, and to engage EPA officials today on this important 

topic. Libby is a beautiful little town in northwestern Montana. Libby is also a place 

where EPA has found asbestos contamination so pervasive—and the conditions so 

severe—that it warranted the declaration of a ‘‘public health emergency.’’ The type 

of asbestos in Libby known as tremolite is particularly deadly. Tremolite fibers 

quickly find their way into victims’ lungs and stay there. It’s like a time bomb waiting to strike. 

The effect of asbestos poisoning on Libby residents has been severe. Hundreds of 

people have grown sick and died due to the pervasive presence of asbestos spewed 

from the vermiculite mining and milling operations of W.R. Grace. Today we know 

that 291 people have died in Libby from asbestos exposure. That’s 291 deaths in 

a community of just over 2,600 people. Lincoln County, Montana, home to Libby, 

has the highest age adjusted death rate due to asbestosis in the entire Nation. 

I am in regular contact with the victims. Recently, I was written by a 55-yearold Libby resident, sick from asbestosis, with one concern—the long-term health of 

his grandchild: 

‘‘[A]t 55 and dying, I have been blessed, with a grandson, just 10 months old . . . 

I never knew I could love so much especially when I know my time is short. My 

grandson is the lifeline that is left from three generations of life/blood line that 

moved to a place so beautiful and God Given that no one would have guessed the 

monster that lie silent in the air and water and soil and lands in the lungs of all 

who breathe . . . what I take with me is knowing in my heart that Libby, Montana, 

killed my parents and killed me and killed my children. Libby will not kill my 

grandson.’’ 

We cannot allow this story to repeat itself. We cannot allow today’s children to 

be told years from now, as this Libby resident was told, that their life is over. The 

asbestos in Libby has exacted an immeasurable toll on the parents of this generation. We cannot allow this to continue in our grandchildren. 

So, as the current generation of Libby residents—through no fault of their own— 

suffers the horrible effects of this deadly poison, I am continuing my long standing 

efforts to be sure that EPA is taking every step possible to ensure that the clean 

up of Libby moves forward expeditiously and is based on accurate risk assessments 

for the unique type of asbestos in Libby. Today my question is—is EPA doing 

enough to ensure that the children in Libby, Montana, are protected from asbestos 
123 

exposure? It would be unforgivable and tragic to create another generation of victims in Libby by failing to take every imaginable step to prevent their exposure to 

this known asbestos contamination. 

The long-term health of the children of Libby should be our focus. We should act 

with an abundance of caution when making decisions that impact them. But ensuring their protection is not a one size fits all proposition. The existing EPA risk assessment procedures and existing science may not be adequate to address the special impacts of childhood exposures to asbestos. The multiple exposure pathways 

and the long-term consequences of cumulative exposures may need special focused 

attention. The comparisons of existing data on childhood exposures at other Superfund sites may not be applicable to the Libby. It is critical that the latest advancements in science, law and policy of children’s health are integrated into the clean 

up decisions that directly impact the Libby community. EPA should redouble its efforts to address these special circumstances. 

Today’s GAO report identifies opportunities for greater focus, direction, and high 

level commitment to children’s health at EPA. The report is critical of EPA’s failure 

to institutionalize children’s health issues into the overall activities of the Agency. 

However the report does identify the potential to start to get things right with the 

appointment of a permanent, stable and long-term office Director. 

Therefore, today, the people of Libby want EPA’s assurance that we are doing everything we can to protect the children of Libby. The people of Libby want EPA’s 

assurance that the schools and playgrounds that we send our children to every day 

are safe. The people of Libby want EPA’s assurance that its clean up assumptions 

and its policy of ‘‘allowable’’ and ‘‘acceptable’’ childhood exposure to asbestos will not 

create another generation of victims at Libby. 

This assurance cannot come only from the clean up managers at EPA. It needs 

to come from the person in the Agency whose job it is to be the advocate for children’s health—that is you, Mr. Grevatt. 

I am asking you to join me in keeping the promise and fulfilling the long-term 

commitment that we have made to the people and particularly the children of Libby, 

Montana. We owe it to the next generation. 

I thank our distinguished panel, and I look forward to your response. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 

Æ