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

20–184 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1218 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE FEDERAL 

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS, 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 2, 2009 

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 

FIRST 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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

DECEMBER 2, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 73 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 74 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 90 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 91 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 92 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 93 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 94 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 118 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 173 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 174 

WITNESSES 

Jackson, Lisa, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............. 99 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 102 

Stephenson, John, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 122 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 124 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 141 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 143 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 144 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 146 

Birnbaum, Linda, Director, National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences ................................................................................................................. 152 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 154 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 157 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 160 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 161 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 162 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 163 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 165 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Testimony of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals .................................................... 175 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE FEDERAL 

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, Washington, DC. 

The committee and subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 

2:40 p.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank 

R. Lautenberg (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, Inhofe, Barrasso, Bond, 

Cardin, Klobuchar, Merkley, Udall, and Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am a little alarmed because I am put to 

the right of the Chairman, and that is not where I intend to be. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But so I want to thank everyone for being 

here. I thought you would be the left of me, but that is so ordinary. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Anyway, despite evidence to the contrary, 

Senator Inhofe and I are good friends, and the evidence is not real. 

Oh, I don’t want to get into that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Now for the serious part. 

I want to thank everyone for being here as we focus on better 

protecting the health of our families by updating our chemical safety laws. 

This is a joint hearing of my Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, 

and Environmental Health and the full committee, which Senator 

Boxer chairs ably, and the two are going to—Senator Boxer asked, 

because I had such an active interest for such a long time in the 

subject at hand, that she agreed to hold this hearing and to permit 

me, again, the leadership of the hearing, at the hearing. 

Right now, there are hundreds of industrial chemicals in our bodies. That goes for nearly everyone in America. In fact, just this 

morning, the Environmental Working Group released the results of 

a 2-year study that found nearly 250 different industrial chemicals 

in the blood of 10 babies who were exposed to the substances while 

still in the womb. 

While some of these chemicals might not be harmful, others 

clearly are. And that means that these children face the possibility 
2 

of chronic, life long health problems from the day they are born. 

And I ask unanimous consent to enter the Environmental Working 

Group study into the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
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 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 

Senator LAUTENBERG. According to a 2002 study, 5 percent of 

cancers, 10 percent of neural behavioral disorders, and 30 percent 

of asthma cases in children are associated with toxic chemicals. 

And it is time to sound the alarm. America’s system for regulating 

these toxic chemicals is broken. Industrial chemicals are everywhere, from flame retardants in furniture and carpets to other 

chemicals in cleaning products, personal care products, food containers, and even children’s products as simple as nipples and baby 

bottles. 

The current law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, puts a high 

burden on EPA to prove chemicals are unreasonably dangerous before the Agency can take steps to restrict their use. The burden is 

so high. In fact, the EPA has been able to ban only 5 of the more 

than 80,000 substances on EPA’s inventory of chemicals on the 

market, and it has only tested about 200. That means the majority 

of chemicals used and products that make their way into our 

homes and our children’s hands are untested. And we must 

strengthen our chemical laws to give Americans confidence that 

products are safe before they are sold and used throughout the 

United States. 

Most of the thousands of chemicals that we use every day are 

safe, but we need a law that will separate those safe chemicals 

from the ones that are not. And I believe that we are in an excellent position to accomplish that goal with a broad group of agencies 

and organizations coming to the table to work for reform. 

President Obama’s Administration is here today. They are represented by the distinguished Administrator of EPA, Lisa Jackson, 

by the way, a good friend from New Jersey. The EPA recently released its principles for reforming TSCA. The Government Accountability Office, which recently put our chemical regulatory system 

on its list of high risk areas of the law, is here, as is the National 

Institute of Environmental Health Science, which has funded research showing the potential risks from toxic chemicals. 

In addition, everyone from chemical manufacturers to businesses 

that use chemicals in their products, to environmental, labor and 

health groups have called for the reforming of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act. The trade association for the chemical manufacturers, 

the American Chemistry Council, has agreed that the status quo 

is not working. In August, they released principles for TSCA reform which matched up closely with the principles released by the 

Obama administration and had substantial overlap with principles 

released by environmental, health and labor groups. 

Now, I ask unanimous consent to enter the American Chemistry 

Council’s principles into the record, as well as a letter from their 

President, Cal Dooley. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Now, just a couple of hours ago, 13 States 

released a statement calling for a strong Federal system to keep 

people safe from chemicals. And at this time, I ask for unanimous 

consent to place that statement into the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
71 
72 
73 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The States have said we have general 

agreement on the problem, and now we have to work together on 

the solution, and often when Government tries to write new laws 

or modify old ones, there is resistance. But this is a case where everyone, I hope, agrees on the need for change, and we need to make 

good on this unique opportunity. 

And that is why in the coming weeks, I plan to reintroduce legislation to strengthen our chemical laws. Our bill will put the burden 

of proving chemicals safety where it belongs, on chemical companies. Instead of waiting for a chemical to hurt somebody, it will require companies to prove their products are safe before they end 

up in the store, further in our homes, and in our being. 

We are already regulating pesticides and pharmaceuticals this 

way, and it is just common sense that we do the same for chemicals that are used in everyday consumer products. 

So I look forward to working with these witnesses to put common 

sense back into our environmental laws and better protect the 

health of the American public. And I thank all of you for being 

here, and I would turn to the Ranking Member of the committee, 

Senator Inhofe, my dear friend with whom we may occasionally differ, but we don’t differ on the fact that we have respect for one another. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. That is true. That is true, and it has been true 

for quite a while now, too. 

Since we have two Chairmen here now, I will refer to the Chairman as Madam Chairman and Mr. Chairman, so we know who we 

are talking to. 

And I am glad we are having this oversight hearing on TSCA. 

Senator Lautenberg has indicated that he will again introduce legislation to amend TSCA. In the interest of moving balanced, effective TSCA reform legislation, I urge you, Senator, to introduce a 

bill driven by risk-based analysis, rather than by precautionary 

principle. 

Now, for the record, I want to get this into the record, I believe 

that any changes in TSCA must adhere to the following fundamental principles. Reviews must use data and methods based on 

the best available science and risk-based assessments. Reviews 

must include cost-benefit considerations for the private sector and 

consumers. Processes must protect proprietary business information as well as information that should be protected for security 

reasons. Procedures should prioritize reviews for existing chemicals. Processes must not include any provision that encourages litigation or citizen suits. And reviews must not include any provisions that compel product substitution by commercial interests or 

consumers. 

Now, before I close, I want to follow up on a letter that I sent 

yesterday, and actually an e-mail last week to you, Madam Chairman, requesting hearings on what is now colloquially referred to as 

Climategate. And whatever one’s position on the science of global 

warming, and Madam Chairman, I think you know mine, one cannot deny that the e-mails raised fundamental questions concerning, 
74 

among other things, transparency and openness in science, especially taxpayer funded science. 

What do I mean? Well, in addition to apparent attempts to manipulate data and vilify scientists with opposing viewpoints, there 

is evidence that some of the world’s preeminent scientists, who received or have received taxpayer funded grants, evaded laws requiring information disclosure, including the Freedom of Information Act. 

Not only is this a potential violation of the law, but it violates 

a fundamental principle of the scientific method, that is to put everything on the table and allow anyone so inclined to attack it. If 

the research sustains the attack, then the researcher, the scientific 

community and the taxpayers can rightly have confidence that the 

conclusions are sound. If not, then it is back to the drawing board. 

Now, Madam Chairman, as I state in my letter, for the taxpayers’ sake, let’s look at this controversy from top to bottom. It 

has already forced Bill Jones, the head of the U.K.’s Climate Research Unit, to step down. The CRU is investigating his behavior, 

and Representative Markey had a hearing today on the e-mail controversy. I wasn’t privileged to sit in on that committee hearing. 

I hope this committee meets its oversight responsibility by holding hearings, and I hope you will join me in calling on the Obama 

administration and the IPCC not only to investigate this matter 

but to release all of the data in question to ensure that taxpayer 

funded research is conducted according to the highest legal, ethical 

and professional standards. 

And I think it goes without saying that the East Anglia operation 

that we are talking about is really at the head of the science of the 

IPCC, and that is what makes this so significant. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Chairman Boxer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Yes. I will respond to Senator Inhofe before I 

make my statement. And so if I could just ask to have a minute 

to respond to him. 

First of all, my understanding is the hearing Representative 

Markey had was on climate science in general, and this issue was 

raised, and it was discussed, just as you have raised it at this hearing. 

You call it Climategate. I call it e-mail theft-gate. Whatever it is, 

the main issue is are we facing global warming, or are we not. I 

am sure you would agree that is the basic question for us. 

I am looking at these e-mails that have been—even though they 

were stolen, they are now out in the public, and we are looking 

through these e-mails. We are also calling the leading scientists of 

the world. We may well have a hearing on this. We may not. We 

may have a briefing for Senators. We may not. We are looking at 

this. 

This is a crime, and I would ask unanimous consent to place into 

the record section 1030 of the U.S. Criminal Code, Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With Computers. Having knowingly 
75 

accessed a computer without authorization, it goes on calling it a 

crime. So part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal 

activity which could well have been coordinated. 

Now, what I have in my hand here is a letter from the Chair of 

the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Mr. James McCarthy. And I ask unanimous 

consent to place it into the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 

Senator BOXER. The body of evidence of human activity as the 

prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming, and he says 

there were these e-mails, but these facts remain. I will put that in 

the record. 

Also put in the record a press release from the Union of Concerned Scientists that says opponents of climate change legislation 

are trying to deceive the American public on climate science. After 

years attacking the science on its merits and failing, they are now 

using stolen e-mails to attack climate scientists directly. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 

Senator BOXER. So we are looking at these e-mails. We are talking to the leading scientists, and Senator, I will share with you as 

these letters come in. And I am sure you and I could discuss how 

to proceed on this. 

In terms of the matter that is before us, I would ask to put my 

full statement in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer was not received at 

time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. And I want to compliment you for taking on this 

issue of chemicals in our environment, chemicals that our children 

are exposed to every single day, pregnant women are exposed, all 

of our families are exposed. 

And you know, I have often thought, Senator, that you have 

worked on this for so long. If I were to invite someone over to have 

a glass of water at my home, and I said, I am not sure that this 

water is safe. It could be poisonous, but why don’t you drink it, and 

then we will talk about it later. 

That is the way we deal with our laws today. It seems to me, you 

would say, well, do you mind testing it first? If it is safe, I will 

drink it. 

So I think we need to reverse this whole system that we have 

in place, and I am happy to say my State is doing that. We want 

to make sure chemicals are safe before we say they can be used. 

President Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act into law 

in 1976, a Republican President, and he believed very strongly because he said at that time that we want toxic chemicals restricted 

in their use or banned if they were hazardous. Somehow along the 

road here, we have lost our way. And I don’t believe that TSCA because of court decisions and poor implementation sufficiently protects pregnant women, infants, children and others. 

And Senator Lautenberg has really been my leader on this. He 

has had many bills in the past, and I am looking forward to his 

writing his new bill, which I am sure is one of the reasons he wanted to have this hearing. 

So here is what we are saying. We are saying thank you to Lisa 

Jackson because EPA in September issued principles for TSCA reform that included common sense steps to help address the risks 

of dangerous toxic chemicals. And I am looking forward to hearing 

from you, Administrator Jackson, on how you want to proceed. 

And again, my State took the lead on phthalates, and I am glad 

that we did something here; the Consumer Protection Safety and 

Improvement Act of 2008 banned those. There is a growing consensus that time is now to act on our chemical policies. 

People come up to me in California, Senator Lautenberg, and 

they say, I decided to have myself tested to see what kind of chemicals I may be carrying around in my body, because they don’t feel 

well, and they want to check it out. Some of the answers that come 

back are kind of shocking. And a lot of people have a lot of mercury 

inside them. They don’t know it. They haven’t been feeling well. 

They are told to eat fish, then they eat too much fish, and they feel 

sick. 

We just need to get our arms around this. The American Chemistry Council has issued principles that support our effort to mod-
90 

ernize our Nation’s chemical management system, so this is good. 

I hope they are going to work with us in a good way, because we 

have a responsibility to our families to make sure that the products 

that are used by our families, by our children every day are safe. 

And we can strengthen our Nation’s toxic load. I just want to 

say, as the Chairman of this committee, that this issue is really at 

the top of my agenda. But I am so happy to have you chair this 

hearing because you have been my leader on this for so very long. 

And I view this hearing as a very important step forward in the 

process. And I thank you again. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Senator INHOFE. I have something to put in the record here, too, 

if I could, Mr. Chairman. 

I also want to put a document in the record. This is, since we 

are talking about the credibility of scientists, this is the Congressional Research Service, and what they say about the CRU Director. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. May I ask you this, Senator Inhofe, that 

we get to the other two Senators here. 

Senator INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to make this a part of 

the record. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Absolutely. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate the witness, Mr. Chairman. I am going to send 

a letter today to Senator Whitehouse as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight along the lines of my concerns about the 

recently disclosed e-mails regarding the Climate Research Unit at 

the University of East Anglia. I think the actions by scientists and 

others to suppress data that contradicts their conclusions are unacceptable, and this conduct should be investigated. So I am requesting that our Subcommittee on Oversight begin an immediate investigation into the matter. 

Mr. Chairman, we do need to protect our children no matter 

what age from the effects of harmful chemicals. I doubt that anyone in this room would not support that goal. There is nothing we 

wouldn’t provide for our children. Children need safe drinking 

water. They need life saving medications. They need safe food to 

eat. 

One question we might ask ourselves in this hearing is the following: Have the chemistry industry and the EPA under the Toxic 

Substance Control Act helped improve the lives and health of our 

children? And to me, I think it has. 

Chlorine is one of the best examples of a successful chemical 

which has saved lives. According to the World Health Organization, 

diseases associated with untreated water kill more than 25,000 

people every day in developing countries, and the chlorination of 

drinking water has been credited by the U.S. Centers for Disease 
91 

Control and Prevention for helping to control infectious diseases 

and increase life expectancy. 

Ninety-eight percent of our water supply systems now use chlorine-based disinfectants. Chemistry using chlorine plays a role in 

producing 93 percent of the top selling medications in the United 

States. Children benefit from these drugs, including the drugs that 

treat epilepsy, asthma and depression. 

An antibiotic, Vancomycin, which is made with the chlorine 

chemical, has saved the lives of patients suffering from serious 

stubborn bacterial illnesses. Chemicals make prosthetic devices 

used as polyvinyl chloride or PVC, which is a common chlorine containing plastic used to construct prosthetic legs and arms for children whose lose limbs or have a birth defect. 

So thanks to these devices, many of these children can lead normal lives and participate in most activities. PVC is used to make 

blood bags, IV fluid tubes, tubing to deliver needed care to young 

patients. Incubators for prematurely born infants are constructed 

of chlorine-based polycarbonate plastic. 

The chemical industry also makes the plastics used to manufacture child car seats, safer playground equipment. There are still 

areas of concern, such as increased rates of childhood obesity and 

low birth weight babies, but we must be ever vigilant. We need a 

strong and a viable regulatory framework, the same framework 

under TSCA that has spurred advancements to help our children, 

not gotten in the way of them. 

This framework can provide the next series of advancements that 

can make the future better for all Americans. 

So every chemical at some exposure level is toxic. Fluoride used 

in toothpaste and purposely put in drinking water, if ingested in 

massive amounts, can cause harmful health effects. So as I say, the 

dose makes the poison. 

We must not enact policies that hamstring new chemical development that would prevent those new advancements. My point is 

that we don’t need to scare folks about risks that are not there or 

are very low probability. Otherwise, the next child vaccine, the 

next bike helmet, the next prosthetic leg will not be there when 

families need it the most. 

And then finally, Mr. Chairman, today Senator Vitter and colleagues in the House and I are sending a letter to Administrator 

Jackson with regard to asking her to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation into the questions raised by the disclosure of 

e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit. We will go into that and 

release that letter today, and I ask that Ms. Jackson give serious 

consideration to this request. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I look forward with interest to the letter from the distinguished 

Senator from Wyoming. As far as I know so far, there is no role 

on the part of EPA alleged in the theft and dissemination of these 
92 

e-mails, so I am not sure that there is much jurisdiction there. But 

nonetheless, I look forward to the letter. 

And I would not want to have whatever this little e-mail squabble is about distract from the relentlessly strong and unified scientific conclusion expressed most recently in a letter from the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Meteorological 

Society, the American Society of Agronomy, the American Society 

of Plant Biologists, the American Statistical Association, the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, the Botanical Society of 

America, the Crop Science Society of America, the Soil Science Society of America, and various other scientific organizations numbering I would guess about 15 or 16, which concludes this: Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is 

occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the 

greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary 

driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines 

of evidence, and contrary assertions—I will cut into the quotation 

here by saying the contrary assertions such as we often hear 

around here—contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective 

assessment of the vast body of peer reviewed science. 

I think we need to bear that in mind as we take a look at what 

I think is a relatively minor concern and one that does not involve 

EPA. 

And Senator Lautenberg, I appreciate very much your long leadership on this toxic issue and look forward to working with you and 

supporting you as you work toward this legislation. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Ms. Jackson. 

I am very much concerned not that these are incidental e-mails, 

but the allegedly unethical and potentially illegal behavior by leading climate scientists may undermine the credibility of EPA actions. 

In the toxics program, the subject of today’s hearing, many of 

EPA’s decisions on whether to regulate a particular chemical are 

based upon science conducted by outside third parties. Indeed, EPA 

emphasizes over and over in its proposal to impose expensive new 

regulation on carbon dioxide emissions that EPA is acting based 

upon the findings of international scientists, including the Climatic 

Research Center in England, at the current center of the controversy. 

And yet we now discover, through the e-mails of scientists themselves, that climate scientists in England, the United States and 

across the world may have manipulated data to support their climate change theories, manipulated peer reviewed journals, sought 

to blackmail and get fired dissenting scientists, avoid legal requirements to make public their data, and destroy data instead of releasing it to the public. 
93 

An American public you are asking to pay higher energy taxes 

and shed jobs in the middle of a recession deserves to know whether EPA is acting based upon some unethical and potentially illegal 

behavior by those so-called scientific organizations on which the 

Agency relies. 

I thank the Chair and I—actually, I said ‘‘black-ball’’, ‘‘blackmail,’’ I meant ‘‘black-ball.’’ 

But in any event, with that correction, I will stand by that statement and have more questions for you later. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and our 

Chair, Senator Boxer, for holding this hearing today. We want to 

thank our witnesses for joining us today, especially our lead-off witness, our Administrator. 

The use of chemicals in this country either saves, or in many 

cases improves the quality of not just thousands of lives, but tens 

of thousands, hundreds of thousands of lives every day, even more 

than that. 

Companies like DuPont, which has a major presence in our 

State, headquartered in our State, companies like BASF, which has 

a growing presence in our State, put science to work to create 

chemicals to provide safer, healthier lives for peoples from all 

walks of life, such as helping us refrigerate our foods or keep bacteria and disease from spreading. 

However, as we all know, exposure to some chemicals or combination of chemicals can be toxic to human health and to our environment. High doses of exposure to certain kinds of chemicals can 

lead to, among other things, cancer, birth defects and death. 

I was in Seaford, Delaware, earlier this week, where there is a 

small company—a large company, but a small plant. The large 

company is BASF, and the small facility employs about 30 people. 

The major ingredients for the products they make come from for 

the most part by rail, and they are dangerous if not properly handled. Put them all together, and they create products from these 

potentially dangerous substances, and they create non-toxic, very 

healthful compounds and products for the rest of us to use every, 

every single day. 

Understanding the risks from certain chemicals, Congress attempted, I think it was in 1976, to give the EPA the tools necessary to protect public health from certain toxic chemicals in our 

country through the Toxic Substances Control Act. Unfortunately, 

we did not give EPA the right tools. And 33 years later, I am told 

the EPA has a list of over 80,000 chemicals being used in this 

country and can only regulate fewer than a dozen, maybe fewer 

than a half-dozen. 

As a result of our failing national policy, what we are seeing happen is a patchwork quilt of chemical regulations are emerging from 

our States, from our local governments, and even Congress has 

seen legislation banning particular chemicals. 
94 

What we need, I believe, is a comprehensive national approach 

to chemical regulation. We need to find a way to keep using the 

chemicals that make our lives safer each day, and we need to restrict, to the extent that it makes sense, the use of chemicals that 

are dangerous to our health. 

Again, I applaud Senator Lautenberg’s efforts on this issue. I 

look forward to working with him and all the stakeholders as we 

move forward on TSCA reform. 

Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, 

Senator Lautenberg, for your leadership, and Chairwoman Boxer. 

And thank you, Administrator Jackson. I also wanted to thank 

you for your pledge to move ahead on the E15 request. I know that 

it is not quite complete, and I urge you to do it as soon as possible, 

but we appreciate that there has been some practical and positive 

studies coming out on this topic. So thank you for that. 

Today, we are here to talk about the Toxic Substances Control 

Act. Since I entered the Senate, I have made safe products and safe 

toys and the safety of the people of this country one of my No. 1 

priorities, coming from my work as a prosecutor. The first thing 

that we have done, and Senator Boxer, a member of the Commerce 

Committee, as well as Senator Lautenberg, was involved in this, 

was passing the Consumer Product Safety Act, which the Wall 

Street Journal called the most sweeping consumer legislation in 16 

years, to deal with toxic toys. We banned lead in children’s products, and I was very proud of that work. 

We have a bill right now that I have with Senator Crapo. We 

have 17 authors. It is a completely bipartisan bill, with people from 

all over the country to bring national standards in for formaldehyde in composite wood products that I wanted to call to your attention. It is supported by the timber industry all over this country 

because, in fact, the timber industry has agreed to follow voluntary 

standards that are similar to the standards they have in California, 

in the United States. 

However, some of the foreign composite wood that is coming in 

does not abide by those standards. And so we are proud to have 

a bill that is supported by the timber industry and many consumer 

groups and health groups as well. As you know, formaldehyde in 

small concentrations is a normal part in our environment, but the 

problem is exposure to formaldehyde in high concentrations like we 

saw in the trailers in Katrina, especially over a prolonged period, 

can cause problems with nausea, asthma and other serious health 

problems. 

So we are very excited about this bill and just wanted to call that 

to your attention in the toxic substance area. 

As you know, the Toxic Substances Control Act was a landmark 

piece of legislation in the 1970s, but a lot has happened in the last 

30 years. New chemicals have been developed. New science is avail-
95 

able, and new regulatory regimes have been created in Europe and 

in other countries around the world. 

I am interested today to hear from you, Administrator Jackson 

and other distinguished panelists, about how we can update this 

Toxic Substances Control Act and how we can do it in a way to protect our children and our families, how we can do it so that we can 

provide more information for consumers, and work with our businesses to produce safe and healthy products. 

So thank you for being here today. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, if I could just put into the record the letter 

that Senator Whitehouse alluded to, from all these organizations, 

American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Geophysical Union, on climate change. Put that in the part of the 

record that deals with this back and forth with Senator Inhofe. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. May I just take a moment here to look at 

what is in this letter that has meaning. This is written by a group 

of organizations, sent to us in October, or a month ago, and when 

these problems came about. And they say, ‘‘As you consider climate 

change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations write 

to state the consensus scientific view,’’ and I will read another sentence or two here. ‘‘Observations throughout the world make it 

clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.’’ And they go on to explain how they 

arrive at that. 

But these are a group of distinguished organizations, without 

any possible criticism of their importance or their research. We 

enter this into the record. 

[The referenced letter follows:] 
96 
97 
98 
99 

Senator LAUTENBERG. With that, we welcome New Jersey’s gift 

to the country. Notice I left out the couple of Senators, but Ms. 

Jackson, New Jersey’s former DEP Administrator and now the 

EPA Administrator for the country. Ambassador Jackson did an 

outstanding job as head of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection. She has continued the work of protecting public 

health and the environment at EPA. 

And I tell you as a long time observer of what is going on and 

what has gone on at EPA that Administrator Jackson has put her 

foot on the gas pedal, and things are happening. I hear through 

people that I—who I discuss that either are within the organization 

or have contact with it, and we thank you for your energy and your 

leadership. 

And please, Ms. Jackson, make your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you so much. It is good to be at EPA. 

So thank you, Chairman Lautenberg, Chairman Boxer, Ranking 

Member Inhofe, and other members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak about how we can improve the framework for 

assessing and managing chemical risks. 

The United States holds an enviable position in the global chemical industry. Since the mid-20th century, we have led the world 

in chemical production and innovation. That has brought new products to our markets and created new possibilities for manufacturing, for communications, and changed the ways we live our daily 

lives. 

That leadership has also provided jobs for Americans across the 

country. As we move into the 21st century, everything from our 

cars to baby bottles to the cell phones we all carry in our pockets 

is constructed with plastics and chemical additives. Chemicals are 

ubiquitous in our economy and in our products as well as in our 

environment and in our bodies. 

Naturally, that has raised concerns. A child born in America 

today will grow up potentially exposed to more chemicals than a 

child from any other generation in our history. At the same time, 

advances in toxicology and analytical chemistry are revealing new 

pathways of exposure. There are subtle and troubling effects of 

chemicals on hormone systems, human reproduction, intellectual 

development, and cognition. 

The public is turning to government, to us, for assurance that 

chemicals have been assessed using the best available science and 

that unacceptable risks have been eliminated. There have been 

calls to action from parents, public health groups, and environmental advocates. Those calls have been seconded by State and 

local authorities. And the chemical industry, too, has stepped up to 

ask for the law to provide consistency and predictability and assure 

the American people that this multi-billion dollar industry is not 

a threat to their health and the health of their children. 

So we are here today because under existing law we cannot give 

that assurance. Restoring confidence in our chemical management 

system is a top priority for me and a top environmental priority for 

the Obama administration. The American people expect that all 
100 

chemicals used in the American economy are safe. But Mr. Chairman, the 30-year-old law that gives EPA that authority is outdated. In the rapidly changing marketplace, it does not allow us to 

adequately protect human health and the environment as the 

American people expect, demand and deserve. 

The Toxic Substances Control Act was signed into law in 1976 

and was intended to provide protection of health and the environment against risks posed by chemicals in commerce. However, 

when TSCA was enacted it authorized manufacture and use without any evaluation or requirement for data on their toxicity of all 

chemicals that were produced for commercial purposes in 1976 or 

earlier years. As a result, there are troubling gaps in the available 

data and state of knowledge on many widely used chemicals in 

commerce. 

In the rare cases where EPA has adequate data on a chemical 

and wants to protect the public against well known, unreasonable 

risk to human health and the environment, there are often legal 

obstacles to quick and effective regulatory action. In 1989, after 

years of study, EPA issued a rule phasing out most uses of asbestos, a chemical whose health effects have been exhaustively studied 

and demonstrated to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis in humans. Yet, a Federal court overturned the rule because 

EPA failed to clear the many hurdles imposed under TSCA before 

existing chemical risk can be controlled. 

Due to these legal and procedural hurdles in the law, EPA has 

only been able to require testing on around 200 chemicals produced 

and used in the United States, and it has only issued regulations 

to control five existing chemicals, 5 from a total universe of more 

than 80,000 existing chemicals listed on the TSCA inventory. 

Though many of these chemicals likely cause little or no risk, the 

story is clear. We have only been able to effectively regulate a 

handful of chemicals, and we know very little about the rest. TSCA 

must be updated and strengthened. 

Earlier this fall, I announced the Obama administration’s legislative principles for how this law should be revised and modernized. 

Let me highlight our principles. 

First, chemicals should be reviewed against safety standards that 

are based on science and reflect risk-based criteria protective of 

human health and the environment. 

Second, the responsibility for providing adequate health and 

safety information should rest on industry. 

Third, EPA should have clear authority to take risk management 

actions when chemicals do not meet the safety standard with flexibility to take into account a range of considerations, including children’s health, economic cost, social benefits, and equity concerns. 

EPA and industry must include special consideration for exposures 

and effects on groups with higher vulnerabilities, particularly children. 

Fourth, EPA should have clear authority to set priorities for conducting safety reviews. 

Fifth, we must encourage innovation in green chemistry and support research, education, recognition and other strategies that will 

lead us down the road to safer and more sustainable chemicals and 
101 

processes. All of this must happen with transparency and concern 

for the public’s right to know. 

Finally, implementation of the law should be adequately and consistently funded in order to meet the goal of assuring the safety of 

chemicals and to maintain public confidence that EPA is meeting 

that goal. 

I know that legislative reform may take time, so I have directed 

by Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances, Steve Owens, to 

utilize our current authority under TSCA to the fullest extent possible, including section 6 authority to label, restrict or ban a chemical to ensure that we do everything we can now to protect the 

American people and the global environment from dangerous 

chemicals. 

While fundamental reform is needed to fully protect against 

chemical risk, this is also a step forward. But let me be clear, there 

is no substitute for meaningful reform of the underlying law. The 

time has come to bring TSCA into the 21st century, and we need 

Congress to do it. 

EPA looks forward to working with this committee on this very 

important issue. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson. 

The one thing that struck me that deals so directly with the concerns about whether or not we are off on some useless pursuit 

when only 200 of some 80,000 chemicals have been tested, despite 

the fact that the numbers are very small in terms of those that 

have been banned, who knows how much damage any one of those 

could be. 

So we know that exposure to toxic chemicals has been linked to 

a wide range of diseases, lower IQs, and birth defects. And yet opponents of government regulation often point to economic concerns. 

Well, wouldn’t restricting the most dangerous chemicals actually 

help reduce health care costs and benefit the economy? I know that 

in my own family, my father, who worked in a mill—and he was 

a hard worker, very energetic—got sick from chemicals in the company and in 13 months died of cancer at age 43. So we know that 

exposure to these harmful things can be extremely serious, and we 

shouldn’t miss any opportunities to try to find them out and ban 

them. 

So what do you say, Ms. Jackson? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think that there is dispute that chemicals can have impacts on our health. I don’t think 

anybody has any quibble with that statement. It is not inflammatory. It is just a simple fact, which means that we must manage 

that risk. We must manage against it. 

And certainly, if you take that as a fact, and you say chemicals 

impact our health, then that means that they have the potential 

to have good and bad impacts on our health if they are well managed or if they are not managed at all. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How might a more transparent, effective 

law for regulating toxic chemicals benefit the companies that buy, 

use these large amounts of chemicals in their product? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, the secondary users, the people who don’t 

manufacture or import, but end up with these materials in their 

product, their businesses can be the first ones affected, and in 

many cases they are affected even though those industries don’t 

have adequate information to make a decision themselves on 

whether or not to take on a chemical in their manufacturing. So 

it can help them, in my opinion. 

Transparency and information about risk, along with scientific 

data to assess and manage that risk, can help protect the people 

who often the public turn to when something goes wrong with a 

product. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, and certainly the economic benefit of 

finding these things early that might be damaging is quite obvious. 

It is going to be a positive influence. 

EPA has overseen the regulation of pesticides for years and has 

succeeded in taking some of the most dangerous pesticides off the 

market. Now, my TSCA reform bill will require testing of chemicals 

using a standard similar to the one that applies to pesticides. Has 

EPA’s regulation of toxic pesticides hurt that industry? Or has the 

industry been able to grow, while allowing EPA to restrict the most 

dangerous uses? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, contrary to hurting the pesticide industry, I 

believe regulation is key to the industry’s ability to innovate and 
108 

then produce and market their products. They need the Government oversight to be able to say to people who eventually use their 

products, our products are tested and evaluated to be safe. 

So my belief—and I use this example all the time—is there are 

times when regulation and oversight, which is what Government 

can do, actually are needed. And I think that is why—I don’t want 

to speak for them—you see a group like ACC saying that it is time 

for us to take this on. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, and included in that, of course, is the 

protection of the organizations that produce these products from 

lawsuits, from damaging publicity, et cetera, and that terrible 

record that would be a blight to any company. 

I thank you very much, Ms. Jackson. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, it is good to see you, Administrator Jackson. I am 

glad both of our families had a great Thanksgiving. 

As I indicated in my opening statement, I am very concerned 

about the e-mails disclosed between some of the world’s leading climate scientists. Administrator Jackson, these are not the run of 

the mill scientists. In fact, according to a memo from the Congressional Research Service sent to my staff this morning, Phil Jones, 

who announced he was stepping down yesterday as a part of the 

investigation, was the lead author of the IPCC Science Working 

Group. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the 

Climate Research Unit, CRU, that we have been referring to from 

the University of East Anglia, where Phil Jones was director, is the 

world renowned Climate Research Center. I think everyone has 

stipulated to that. 

I am sure some of these e-mails were troubling to you. 

And by the way, I appreciate, Madam Chairman, your willingness to get in and look at these e-mails and make a determination 

as to what you think the proper action would be. 

But as I look at these e-mails, one of them, I am quoting from 

it right now. Now, the two Ms are referring to McKitrick and McIntyre. We are all familiar with them. They are scientists from Canada. ‘‘The two Ms have been after the CRU station data for years. 

If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the U.K., 

I think I will delete the file rather than send it to anyone.’’ This 

is Phil Jones. That was his e-mail. ‘‘So please don’t pass this along 

to others.’’ In other words, disclose, hide this cover up—‘‘cover up’’ 

is the word. ‘‘Please don’t pass this along to others without checking with me first. This sort of dirty laundry one doesn’t want to fall 

into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things.’’ 

Now, that is Michael Mann. We all remember Michael Mann 

from the very beginning of this. In fact, I remember back during 

the early Kyoto days, it was his hockey stick that started this 

whole thing, which has been pretty much refuted in terms of the 

science many, many years ago. 

Now, I could go on and on, but let me get to the question. Just 

this morning in the House climate hearing, President Obama’s scientific adviser, Dr. John Holdren, said he did not think that Congress needed to investigate this. His reason, he said, is the scientific process would work itself out. 
109 

Now, that is interesting to me because if these e-mails show anything, they show scientists obstructing the scientific process. They 

show scientists refusing to turn over their data so other scientists 

could reproduce it. That is an essential step in the scientific process. These scientists didn’t want the scientific process to work. 

So my concern is—well, first of all, I would just ask you as to 

whether or not you agree with Dr. Holdren in his response to these 

questions. Is an investigation not warranted because the scientific 

process will work itself out? That was his position. 

Ms. JACKSON. Dr. Holdren has probably spent more time thinking about that aspect of this issue than I have. From my perspective, I have been focused on the science that undergirds EPA’s regulatory actions to date, and you are very familiar with them, Senator. And my ear is to the ground for any information that comes 

to light at any time, whether it is a result of this e-mail issue or 

otherwise, that causes me to believe that the overwhelming consensus has changed. 

And while I would absolutely agree that these e-mails show a 

lack of interpersonal skills, as I would say to my kids. Be careful 

who you write, and maybe more. I have not heard anything that 

causes me to believe that that overwhelming consensus that climate change is happening and that manmade emissions are contributing to it has changed. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, even though these scientists were the lead 

scientists, everyone agrees that the CRU of East Anglia was certainly at the very top of this, and the IPCC relied upon these lead 

scientists. It is interesting, the matter that is submitted for the 

record is dated the 21st of October, before any of this happened. 

And I would strongly suspect that these organizations relied on the 

science of the IPCC. That is what is called into question. 

Now, the question I have, the reason I am bringing this up with 

you is, we are in the process of pursuing an endangerment finding 

right now. And the endangerment finding, according to almost everyone, including you, is based on the information given by the 

IPCC. So I would say that if we agree with Dr. Holdren that the 

science will work itself out, that we should suspend any further activity in the endangerment finding until the science is worked out. 

Would you agree with that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I believe that what we should be looking 

for are any changes in the consensus opinion of scientists around 

the world about climate change, about man’s contribution to it. And 

when it comes to the endangerment finding, you know quite well 

that that goes to whether greenhouse gases endanger public health 

and welfare. 

And so it is EPA’s obligation, it is my job to keep ear to the 

ground on that issue as far as how the science impacts our regulatory decision, and I am committed to doing that. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let me ask you one other question. I know 

my time is running out here. But many of the individuals on the 

other side of this issue, on the alarmist side, like George Monbiot 

with The Guardian, he said, and this is a quote, I think it was just 

yesterday. He said, ‘‘Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t 

going to make it go away.’’ And he goes on to talk about these 

things, they have got to be looked at. 
110 

And I would say that, yes, I know what the endangerment finding is, but I also strongly suspect, and I have some documentation 

to show, that it is reliant to a great degree on findings by the 

IPCC. And here we have the two lead scientists in the IPCC that 

everyone else is depending on under investigation now and relieved 

from their positions 

For that reason, I would encourage you to delay until we do have 

findings any further processes that could be made or are in the 

process of being made in the Environmental Protection Agency that 

would depend on the authenticity of the science that comes from 

the IPCC. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you agree? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JACKSON. I certainly hear your encouragement, and I appreciate your position. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator BOXER. What about me? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Oh, I am sorry. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am so unaccustomed to being after Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Right, well, you mean, you didn’t think I wanted 

to respond to my esteemed Ranking Member? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, I try to keep a sparring partner. 

Senator BOXER. You are trying to keep us apart. You are trying 

to keep us apart. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. You’re doing a good job. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. That is right. That is exactly right. 

Well, let me say this, first of all, I thought this hearing was 

going to be about TSCA, and you have my word that TSCA is very 

high up on my agenda and also the other members of this committee, I think on both sides, because here is where we are going. 

Right now, we are learning about these toxic chemicals, and there 

is outrage in the public, Administrator Jackson, because we are not 

doing anything. Our hands are tied. You yourself said you were so 

upset about this. 

And of 80,000 chemicals, what did you say? You are regulating 

2, did you say, of those? 

Ms. JACKSON. Five. 

Senator BOXER. Banned 5. 

Ms. JACKSON. We have taken action on 5. 

Senator BOXER. Now, that is why you see in the Senate, we are 

moving against lead in toys. And several of us, as Senator 

Klobuchar reiterated, were involved in that. We are moving against 

phthalates. We are going to move against BPA. We are going to 

move against all these things one at a time. 

And it makes no sense because we need to have a process that 

we all believe in, that we all know is working. 

Now, I just want to say as Chairman of this committee and representing the majority, we don’t want you to delay on this 
111 

endangerment finding. We know on climate change, the Bush administration did all the legwork. We had a whistleblower, Jason 

Burnett, who worked for the Bush administration, tell us, talk 

about e-mails. There was an e-mail that was sent from the EPA 

that the White House under George W. Bush never opened because 

they said if they opened it, they would have to act. 

Now, finally, you sent an e-mail to the Obama administration 

and my understanding is they opened it, and we should have this 

endangerment finding. 

Now, here is the thing. If you think, as you just said, that the 

science is real, don’t delay because lives are at stake. Don’t delay. 

Now, this whole flap reminds me a lot of the flap over tobacco. 

There were scientists who said smoking causes lung cancer, and 

there were outliers who said no. A lot of them were paid by the tobacco companies. 

And let me just say this. I am sure there were many, many emails, because I remember that there were letters and e-mails on 

this. I only care about one thing, seriously. If anyone broke the law 

by hacking in, put them in jail. If anyone broke the law by defaming somebody, and you could prove defamation, do what you have 

to do. 

All I care about is one thing, and that is the real science and 

whether or not people are in danger. And I urge you to move forward because, again, we have a letter from the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science saying e-mails 

aside, the fact is the evidence is overwhelming. And then we have 

other scientists stepping up to the plate. 

Now, people write ridiculous e-mails when they are in the middle 

of a fight. And to me what is important is, e-mails aside, is there 

global warming? Is it being affected by human activity? And there 

is nothing out there, nothing, that says otherwise. 

To delay an endangerment finding would be a very dangerous 

thing to do. That would endanger the public. That would endanger 

the public. We need to move forward. 

The Bush administration hung up that e-mail and never got to 

it because they knew. And to their credit, their people, their scientists, their lawyers, they knew that this was a danger. And now, 

finally, we are on the verge of getting that endangerment finding. 

So, I always, whenever my Ranking Member asks me to hold a 

hearing to look at an issue, I always say I will absolutely work 

with him to do that. But as I look at this, you have to understand 

we are dealing with the breaking of the law here. We are dealing 

with probably a criminal act of hacking into a computer. And to 

me, what is important here is what is the science, regardless of 

what one scientist thinks of another, and he writes the nastiest email, I think it is a foolish waste of his time. Ridiculous. 

But what impacts my constituents, who live in a State that borders on the coast, who live in a State that is dependent on agriculture, on the forests, on a water system that depends on snowfall? What I want to know is the truth about global warming, not 

what one scientist is snipping or at another one. It is silly. It is ridiculous. 

And I am happy to look at it. We have those e-mails, even 

though they were gotten illegally, they have been put up so we are 
112 

going through them. It seems to me they must have been hacking 

this for years, and just before Copenhagen, they came out with 

these. That is what is seems to be because these e-mails, they go 

back—how many are there? Over 1,000 e-mails? So I don’t know 

how long, 1,000 e-mails. And now all of a sudden they came out 

with these e-mails. 

So yes, we will look at Senator Inhofe’s request, and I want you 

to know, Senator, we have written to the leading scientists in 

America to ask them their opinion. Have they changed their point 

of view? And so far, we are getting the letters in. They have not. 

And to me, that is all that matters. This is the Environment Committee, not the committee where we look at who broke laws and 

what it means, and if someone defames somebody. So that is where 

we are. 

On TSCA, I reiterate my commitment. I apologize that this hearing got turned around on us. It is wrong, but I cannot possibly in 

good faith not lay out what I think is the truth here because there 

are some over the top speeches going on that I think are crazy, not 

the people giving them, but the speeches make no sense to me. 

They are talking about Climategate. I think it is e-mail theft-gate. 

So let’s just get to where we want to get to, which is make sure 

the science is real, and we are going to do your TSCA bill, and we 

are looking forward to seeing it introduced. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I wonder whether there is an intention, 

Senator Boxer, to discredit science support for these things by introducing the other subject, and it is not appropriate for this committee hearing. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let me answer that question, Mr. Chairman. And I want to put something in the record also that I think 

is appropriate. 

The reason it is important for me to ask the question is because 

in response to our questions, Madam Administrator, you stated 

during the proposed endangerment findings, quote, now these are 

your words, ‘‘The Agency relied in large part on the assessment reports developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change.’’ 

Now, I know that is true, and here we have the two top scientists 

in IPCC under investigation, and that is why I think it is perfectly 

legitimate for us to make the request that you suspend anything 

further on this. 

I ask that this be—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I ask that you try and move things along 

here. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Right, I mean, just because they may have 

done something that is inappropriate, and I don’t know there was, 

I think in all fairness, Senator Inhofe, we have got to move with 

the subject here at hand, and then take whatever action you would 

like at a later time. 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Whitehouse, will you please speak 

up? 
113 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Oh, wait. I am sorry. It goes to Senator 

Bond. Forgive me. 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Senator. You are an excellent subcommittee Chair. And I appreciate so much the opportunity 

to pursue what I think is a very real question about the science 

that we must address, and it is critically important. 

Madam Administrator, let me read you some e-mails, and I 

would ask your comments. 

From Phil Jones, the head of U.K. Climate Research Unit, who 

e-mailed on July 8th, 2005, to Mike Mann: ‘‘I can’t see either of 

these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep 

them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Cheers, Phil.’’ 

Now, that is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

the fellow scientist is Kevin. 

Madam Administrator, would you condone EPA scientists trying 

to block publication of dissenting views? 

Ms. JACKSON. I have committed to transparency at EPA. I believe that scientific rigor comes from transparency and openness. 

Senator BOND. I agree, and I appreciate that. 

Next, from Tom Wigley, a scientist at the U.S. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, e-mailed on April 24, 2003: 

‘‘One approach is to direct to the publishers. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign probably will not work. Must get rid 

of Hans von Storch.’’ He was the journal editor. 

Would you condone EPA scientists trying to blackball or get rid 

of holders of dissenting opinions? 

Ms. JACKSON. I would hope that EPA scientists would spend 

their time working on science and on working in a more collegial 

matter than may be inferred from the e-mails that you are reading. 

Senator BOND. Thank you. 

From Michael Mann of the Pennsylvania State University, emailed on February 9, 2006: ‘‘I wanted you guys to know that you 

are free to use R.C. in any way you think would be helpful,’’ and 

I would note that that is the Real Climate Internet blog, parenthetically, ‘‘use R.C. in any way you think would be helpful. We 

can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether 

or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, 

any comments you would like us to include.’’ 

Does that sound to you like they are manipulating the comment 

record to block comments? I assume that would be intolerable at 

the EPA, would it not? 

Ms. JACKSON. We have standards that have to go toward regulation. It is hard for me to tell from the context there whether he is 

talking about a personal blog or some other document. It is very 

difficult for me to know what he is talking about there. 

Senator BOND. We will make these available to you and I am 

sure you will be—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I have seen the ones online for sure. 

Senator BOND. A fourth question is from Kevin Trenberth of the 

U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research on October 12, 

2009: ‘‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at 

the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.’’ 
114 

Now, Madam Administrator, would you be concerned if EPA scientists were saying one thing publicly, but behind the scenes were 

voicing fundamental doubts over the ability to square the actual 

scientific facts with their assertions? 

Ms. JACKSON. I smile, Senator, because EPA scientists are an 

outspoken bunch, but they tend to make their opinions known, and 

they have, because they are Government employees, an obligation 

to public trust to be honest and open and forthright. 

Senator BOND. I would have thought that these people from the 

IPCC would have had some obligations as well, but it is appearing 

that they don’t. 

Finally, all these e-mails indicate unethical and potentially illegal behavior by climate scientists around the world, the ones who 

are the strongest supporters and the real authorities for the assertions and the extrapolations on climate change. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists said yesterday that if true, 

these actions are ‘‘a serious breach of scientific ethics and public 

trust,’’ from the BNA 2009, December 2. 

Would you agree that these actions, if they represent—if true, do 

represent a serious breach of scientific ethics and public trust? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I hesitate to pass judgment on something 

that I have not reviewed, and I am not an attorney by training. 

What I do know is that from the standpoint of the idea of scientific 

openness, collegiality, transparency, sharing of information, certainly there are at least questions and discussion, it sounds like, 

will continue on those. 

Senator BOND. OK. Well, we appreciate your looking at it because if this pattern of egregious misbehavior of the scientists does 

raise real and significant questions about the validity of the views 

they have presented, then I think we have to take a much deeper 

look. 

I thank you, and I thank the Chair for your indulgence. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

I was asked by the Chairman of the committee to enter a copy 

of an interview that was done with Dr. Pachauri, who chairs the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He stood by his panel’s 2007 findings, called the fourth assessment report of the panel. 

‘‘This private communication in no way,’’ referring to the hacking, 

‘‘in no way damages the credibility of the findings,’’ he told Reuters 

in an e-mail exchange. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And we have verification by so many 

science organizations that asked to be recognized that I think that 

to go further here is an interrogatory that we ought not to carry 

on with. 

Now, Senator Whitehouse, please. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

To sort of I hope put somewhat to rest this question, does anything that you are aware of from this e-mail kerfuffle raise any 

problem with the ethics or the credibility or the validity of findings 

made by the American Association for the Advancement of Science 

or the American Chemical Society or the American Geophysical 

Union or the American Institute of Biological Sciences or the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Agronomy, the 
115 

American Society of Plant Biologists, the American Statistical Association, the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, the Botanical Society of America, the Crop Science Society of America, the 

Ecological Society of America, the Natural Science Collections Alliance, the Organization of Biological Field Stations, the Society for 

Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Society of Systematic Biologists, the Soil Science Society of America, or the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am not aware of anything, Senator, that goes to 

their credibility or the longstanding, and it sounds like continuing 

consensus, overwhelming number of scientists who continue in 

their consensus regarding climate science. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In terms of, turning to the TSCA issues, 

it is frequently the tactic of the polluting industries and of those 

who serve their ends to engage in the spread of doubt about the 

science—not to challenge it directly, but just to encourage the 

spread of doubt, and also to seek delay so that dangerous products 

can be marketed for a longer period of time before regulators can 

catch up with them and protect the public. 

There is a bit of a conflict between those two in that if you wait 

for absolute scientific certainty, if there even is such a thing, since 

science is a process of questioning, you probably are defeated on 

the delay front. And if you try to make reasonable accommodation 

for delay, that raises the issue of scientific doubt, which improperly 

understood, can be used as an unfair and improper rhetorical tool. 

In that context and in terms of these—what is it? There are 

80,000 chemicals out there? 

Ms. JACKSON. Eighty-thousand. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Eighty-thousand. So it is 79,995 that have 

not received regulatory action. That is a lot of work ahead of you. 

How do you balance the need to avoid delay where public health 

is concerned, the incredible workload of trying to plow through 

79,995 TSCA chemicals that have not had a determination yet, and 

at the same time reach adequate science so that you don’t fall too 

vulnerable to the doubt challenge that is raised so often on behalf 

of polluters? 

Ms. JACKSON. That balance is one that is not unfamiliar to EPA 

or to me in my career. Allow me a moment to just simply point out 

that in the space between that doubt and that delay stands the 

American consumer, the American people who simply want some 

assurance that Government is looking out for their interests in that 

space. 

So they want a high quality of living. Of course, they want to be 

able to buy things for their family and give them what they want 

or need and sometimes want. But we, as the Government, and I 

believe EPA in particular have a role to play and needs some help 

from Congress to play it. 

To answer your question more directly, prioritization will be key. 

Efficiency in the rulemaking process will be key. EPA’s success will 

be tied initially to a strong piece of legislation that gives us clear 

standards and clear direction but also gives us some amount of 

flexibility to make decisions. 

And our obligation, if we are able to get that obligation, will be 

to do it in an efficient and timely manner. Because if you don’t 
116 

make a decision, as I have said often during my career, that answer is really no, because that delay, that time period is time when 

a concern grows and builds and may become even ubiquitous in the 

marketplace such that by the time you know you have a problem, 

it is too late. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Administrator Jackson. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Just one quick question at the beginning here. As we move forward with energy legislation, I have always said one way to build 

support for it is by making sure that people have skin in the game 

across the country, that they see part of the action here. 

And certainly biofuels are a piece of this. I have talked—I know 

Secretary Chu is a fan of moving ahead to the next level of research with biofuels. And I just wanted to quickly follow up. I sent 

a letter to you yesterday urging you to move forward with the E15 

waiver request. And if you could just reiterate what you announced 

yesterday and what the studies are showing. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thanks, Senator. Thanks for your letter, and 

thanks for the conversations we have had along the way during the 

process on the waiver, and of course, the outstanding renewable 

fuels to regulation that is out there as well. 

What we did yesterday was announce that December 1st was actually the deadline for a decision on the waiver. And we did not 

want that date to pass without saying anything because we were 

afraid that the industry would construe that to be more negative 

than the current amount of data that we have are. 

We have testing from two vehicles. We are waiting for testing 

from about a dozen and a half more. Two vehicles doesn’t seem 

enough to make a determination on the waiver, but that data 

shows that E15 is appropriate for newer vehicles, 2001 model year 

and newer. 

So what we said was that—we stated where we are with data. 

We said we need more time. We acknowledged that the Department of Energy—you mentioned Secretary Chu—they are doing the 

testing, with our money, in part, and that that testing would come 

in in May. 

And in the meantime, because EPA foresees a need to be forward-looking about biofuels in general, as we see our country continuing to move in that direction, that we would look at a labeling 

work group because if you are talking about a fuel that can be used 

in some applications and potentially not others, if the data continued to show what they are showing now, we are going to need to 

make sure that consumers understand that, have appropriate labeling so they can’t accidentally or inadvertently make a decision 

and not realize what is going on with fuels. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Thank you very much, Administrator Jackson. 

I wanted to follow up also on, as we get to the chemicals here, 

the formaldehyde issue. I notice that Mr. Stephenson, who will be 

testifying on the next panel, in his written testimony noted that 

there has been some push to adopt the California formaldehyde 

regulation. EPA recently issued an advance notice of proposed rule-
117 

making suggesting some regulatory options to limit the exposure to 

formaldehyde. 

However, because of the legal hurdles the Agency would face in 

regulating formaldehyde under TSCA, some stakeholders have recommended that EPA pursue legislation instead. As you know, we 

are working on, for at least this piece of it, for the wood products 

that we are dealing with here, that we have introduced some legislation. 

I just wondered if you could talk about the importance of regulating formaldehyde and the dangers that it poses at high concentration levels. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, Senator, EPA is pursuing regulatory action 

for formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is, as we sit here, a known eye, 

nose, throat irritant, currently classified as a carcinogen. The difference is in time, I think. And right now, the risk information and 

science that EPA is doing is going to take longer than this year. 

In fact, I believe the risk assessment will be for cancer and noncancer effects, and the target completion date is fall of next year. 

So we have a bit of a disconnect in terms of timing from a regulatory perspective. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Thank you. And that is one of the 

reasons with the composite wood products, at least, so we are pursuing this. 

Just in general, with the TSCA legislation, can you talk about 

new scientific methods and discoveries that are necessary to determine risks that are posed by chemicals, reasons that we would 

want to be updating this legislation? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, certainly, our analytical capability has improved over the years so that we can see lower and lower doses, 

if you will, amounts of chemicals that might be present, biomonitoring indicators. Things like cord blood, we heard about earlier, 

are available to help us understand what is showing up and where 

so that we can prioritize what we work on and also use that information on the dose side. 

And then on the response side, we are learning more about end 

points that we never considered along the way. And the industry 

is as well. I mean, I think it is very important to note that the vast 

majority of this data comes from industry. One of the great failings 

right now with the current statute is on the information exchange 

piece. EPA doesn’t have the ability to quickly get the data that industry may already have. 

And although we have a standard of care to ensure we don’t do 

anything to hamper competitiveness with real confidential information, a lot of information is currently marked confidential that EPA 

either can’t or doesn’t challenge in terms of being able to get information out to other scientists who might be able to also evaluate 

that material as well. 

So a lot has changed, a lot for the good, but I think this statute 

is one that where there is tremendous opportunity to modernize it 

in a way that will helpful to the public sector, to the private sector, 

but most importantly to Americans. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Merkley. Senator Udall. 
118 

Senator UDALL. That is OK, Senator Lautenberg. We are both 

from the West anyway. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That is the conclusion I came to. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Senator Lautenberg, thank you for your leadership on these very important issues that are before us and in particular your leadership with regard to toxic substances. 

Administrator Jackson, I believe that your testimony laid out 

very clearly the current problems with TSCA, and I would like to 

add my voice to those here today calling for reform. 

It is really sad to me that where we are today—you look back 

in history, and 50 years ago Rachel Carson wrote a book, Silent 

Spring, and she talked about how toxic substances were impacting 

wildlife. And the country became outraged, and there was this 

huge uproar, and we took action to do something about toxic substances in that context. 

And as you have said the public expects— and I think the public 

believes today—the Government is out there filling the space, trying to do and take very important actions on toxic substances. And 

in fact, as we have heard today through your testimony and what 

the committee has put together, there are big holes, and there are 

big voids in terms of our ability to move forward. 

And what I would like to ask you about revolves around what the 

European Union is doing, because there are countries that are very 

active in trying to protect their citizens, and the European Union 

recently finalized its new chemical regulatory program called—the 

acronym is REACH, but it is registration, evaluation, authorization 

and restriction of chemical substances. 

It is my understanding that most chemical producers in the U.S. 

are producing for the global market or are producing chemicals 

that are also produced in Europe. As a result, despite the weaknesses of our laws, will EPA and State regulators be getting a 

wealth of information on these chemicals due to the E.U. program? 

And will EPA be able to take advantage of this new information 

submitted to the E.U. program to take action under our existing 

laws? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Senator. I think the opportunity here is to 

avoid duplication as much as possible. And you are absolutely right 

that the E.U. and some States have started to move down this 

pathway in varying degrees, and certainly our neighbors in Canada 

as well. 

Now, the E.U. process is probably the most data intensive of 

them all. And it would be foolish of us to not use data that is coming in from other sources and be informed by it. We have a good 

relationship. We intend to continue to work that, so hopefully we 

can have that result. 

Senator UDALL. Now, you are talking about you have banned five 

substances. Is that correct? How many has the European Union 

banned that you are aware of? 

Ms. JACKSON. I actually don’t know the answer to that, Senator. 
119 

Senator UDALL. OK, if you could submit that, that would be very 

helpful to me. I would like to look at what we have banned, what 

they have banned, what other State regulators have banned, and 

how far behind are we at the national level in looking at chemicals 

that are out there that have already been banned when there has 

been an intensive scientific process. 

As many of the witnesses said before me and many of the Senators, this idea we want this to be based on science, but we also, 

after it is based on science, want to take action based on science 

to protect the public. 

Now, let me ask you an additional question here, because you, 

despite the limitations of TSCA here in the United States, you are 

taking a number of actions on certain known dangerous chemical 

compounds such as BPA and phthalates, which led to the public— 

is that the way to say it?—which led to the public scare about toxic 

chemicals in baby toys and water bottles. 

How did EPA determine the priorities for acting on potentially 

toxic chemicals given that our laws do not provide EPA with adequate information? EPA has stated its intent to formally engage 

stakeholders and the public in a discussion of prioritizing chemicals 

for future risk management. Recently, there has been a great deal 

of concern about endocrine disrupters and other chemicals that can 

have a very large developmental impact at very low doses. These 

impacts are not fully understood by the public. 

Which types of chemicals will EPA be looking at when it sets priorities for action next year? 

Ms. JACKSON. As you mentioned, we are on 4 out of 80,000, and 

so as you can imagine, that was a relatively easy decision. We tried 

to stick to ones that were almost, I hate to use the word no 

brainers, because people can argue over things, but phthalates—— 

Senator UDALL. Where the science was very strong. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, where we know that if we can, the American 

people expect us to take action if we can. And I should point out 

also that not every action is a ban. In fact, oftentimes it is not a 

ban at all. It may be other risk management. It could be labeling. 

It could be information. It could be an order to get more information. 

But to answer your second question, for the next chemicals in the 

action orientation, we will initiate a stakeholder dialogue to try to 

continue to expand that list. But I would simply say that what that 

list is about are not final actions. To the extent that a chemical 

gets on that list and EPA determines that some action is needed, 

that entire process is subject to public comment as well. 

And so it is once again that idea between delay and trying to 

move forward aggressively, to show the American people that although as I sit here I say TSCA is broken and needs to be fixed, 

we are going to do whatever we can to use that statute the best 

we can in the interim, because we know that we need to give you 

time to work. 

Senator UDALL. All right. Thank you for your hard work over 

there. 

And thank you, Senator Lautenberg, sorry running over a little 

bit, but her answers are very important, I think, for the record. 
120 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Sorry I have to call out the more senior—— 

Senator UDALL. I do have more seniority than Merkley. You are 

right about that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, just a couple of quick things. You and I 

have in the past talked about the Wall Street Journal report this 

past summer about Dr. Alan Carlin and a colleague who prepared 

a 98-page analysis, and that analysis argued that the EPA should 

take another look at the EPA’s scientific data behind the 

endangerment finding that carbon dioxide is a threat to public 

health. 

As reported in the Journal, a senior EPA official suppressed this 

detailed account produced by Dr. Carlin. The response was that an 

e-mail from his boss, Al McGartlin, forbidding him ‘‘from any direct 

communication’’ with anyone outside of the office with regard to his 

analysis. His credibility was attacked in the press with regard to 

his report when it was publicly released. 

Now that we have this new data coming forth in terms of the 

U.N.’s IPCC reports, and those reports have been put into question 

because of the leaked e-mails, we know that the EPA has relied 

heavily on the U.N. reports. And it would appear that Dr. Carlin 

may have been vindicated. 

Do you think that Dr. Carlin is owed an apology by the Administration? 

Ms. JACKSON. I just want to be clear, Senator, because there is 

absolutely no connection I am aware of between Dr. Carlin’s work 

that went on for years before I got to EPA and this latest e-mail 

issue that is being discussed here today. I am not aware of any. 

And my response to Dr. Carlin’s situation was that when he 

made allegations that his work wasn’t being heeded or that he 

wasn’t being allowed to post information on his Web site, the thing 

I said was let him do it, and give us your information. It turns out 

he had given it many times in the past to EPA scientists, and his 

information is part of the record of comments for the endangerment 

draft finding that now has to be responded to. So his information 

is in the record and will be responded to by scientists. That is our 

obligation. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, it seems to me that his criticism was 

that the EPA was relying too heavily on outside sources for its 

data, so I think that the criticism would be valid if the EPA truly 

has been relying on outside sources for its data rather than doing 

its own research work. 

So those are the issues, and as I look at this and the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, 

do you believe that the EPA has relied too heavily on outside 

sources of data as now we see that some of this data is being called 

into question? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, EPA does emissions monitoring. When facilities emit and report, we have information right now. It is voluntary, but as you know, beginning in January of next year, there 

will be mandatory reporting for large facilities. 
121 

But EPA is not, you know, we don’t send up weather satellites. 

We are not authorized to do major atmospheric modeling except in 

the context of the Clean Air Act. So it is incumbent on EPA in looking at the science to look at other people’s data and to look at 

science’s interpretation of that data. And we look at a number of 

sources, and the endangerment finding in its draft form cites those 

sources. 

Senator BARRASSO. Because I got the impression from Dr. Carlin’s comment that he couldn’t think of any instance where EPA depended so heavily on non-EPA synthesis reports to justify a proposed regulatory action over all of his years with the Agency. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, that may well be his opinion. I don’t know, 

and I haven’t reviewed whatever source you are citing. What I will 

say is that EPA relies on science all the time. And in fact, it is bit 

contradictory to say we should get our own data and not look, but 

then so often what we do at EPA is work with groups who have 

better science. 

When we talk about TSCA here today, the vast majority of the 

chemicals risk data is generated by producers or importers of 

chemicals. So much of what we do at EPA relies on science and information that is collected and that we are under obligation to do 

the very best job we can of evaluating. 

Senator BARRASSO. What I just heard you say is you want to rely 

on reports of better science. And I am just not sure, in light of 

these recent e-mails, that the things you were relying on actually 

were better science. And that is why I have written a letter to ask 

that you look into some of these things. 

Ms. JACKSON. And I understand that, Senator. I just have to repeat again for the record that nothing I have seen, and I certainly 

have my ear to the ground, causes me to be concerned about the 

validity of the science. And I think we have heard that the consensus on the science, not on the process, not on whether judgment 

was poor, not even on legal issues, but on the science, has changed. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

And thank you, Administrator Jackson, for your excellent testimony and your unflappability. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And the next panel, we have Mr. Stephenson and Ms. Linda Birnbaum. We invite you to the witness table. 

Thank you for your patience and durability. 

Mr. Stephenson is Director of Natural Resources and Environmental Issues at the Government Accountability Office, a very important post. We welcome you here. 

And Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences. 

And I think each of you has been experienced enough around the 

Hill to know because there are no other bodies sitting at the table 

doesn’t mean a lack of interest, or rather that the record will clearly show what you have to say. We are pleased to have you here. 

I am sorry that is has taken so long for me to manage my trip 

through this chairmanship here. 
122 

Everybody is interested in what is going on. Environment is 

something that we are committed to work on, to recover a lot of 

years of neglect, and we thank you. 

Please, Mr. Stephenson, please. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am here today to discuss the need to transform EPA’s processes 

for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals. As has been mentioned, EPA’s ability to effectively implement its mission of protecting human health and the environment is critically dependent 

upon credible and timely assessments of the risk posed by toxic 

chemicals. Such assessments are the cornerstone of scientifically 

sound environmental decisions, regulations and policies. 

In over a dozen reports over the past several years, we have recommended both statutory and regulatory changes to, among other 

things, strengthen EPA’s authority to obtain additional information 

from the chemical industry, shift more of the burden of chemical 

companies for demonstrating the safety of their chemicals, and enhance the public’s understanding of the risk of chemicals to which 

they may be exposed. 

In January 2009, as you mentioned, we added transforming 

EPA’s processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals to our 

high risk list, a designation GAO uses to focus attention on the 

Government’s most intractable problems. EPA has taken positive 

actions consistent with our recommendations to improve IRIS processes for assessing chemicals. 

Now, it is up to Congress to determine the best way to amend 

TSCA to provide EPA the tools that it needs for controlling toxic 

chemicals more effectively. TSCA as currently written places nearly 

all of the burden for obtaining chemical risk data on EPA, rather 

than on chemical companies, and the procedures EPA must follow 

to obtain test data from companies takes many resources and years 

to complete. 

For example, the Act requires EPA to demonstrate certain health 

and environmental risks before it can require companies to further 

test their chemicals. This is something of a catch-22. EPA cannot 

require testing to determine the risk of a chemical until it determines that the chemical poses a risk. As a result, EPA does not 

routinely assess the risk of thousands of chemicals currently in use. 

In addition, TSCA does not require chemical companies to test 

the approximately 700 new chemicals introduced into commerce 

each year for toxicity, and companies generally do not voluntarily 

perform such testing. 

Moreover, while it is true that TSCA authorizes EPA to ban, 

limit or otherwise regulate existing toxic chemicals, EPA must 

meet a very high legal threshold before it can do so. For example, 

TSCA states that EPA must demonstrate that a chemical possesses 

unreasonable risk. It also must provide substantial evidence in 

support of any action it takes to ban or limit chemical usage. To 

meet this legal threshold, EPA must conduct extensive cost-benefit 
123 

analysis that can take many taxpayer resources and years to complete. 

Since 1976, EPA has used TSCA authority to control only five 

chemicals, and often-used statistics, five chemicals in 30∂ years. 

The case of asbestos illustrates the problem. After over 10 years of 

study and nearly unanimous scientific opinion, EPA in 1989 issued 

a rule phasing out most uses of asbestos. Yet in 1991, a Federal 

Appeals Court vacated the rule because, in the court’s view, it was 

not justified by substantial evidence. 

Meanwhile, the European Union and a number of other countries 

have long since banned asbestos, a known human carcinogen that 

can cause lung cancer and asbestosis. 

In addition, because of TSCA’s prohibitions on the disclosure of 

confidential business information, EPA has limited ability to share 

information on chemical production and risk with others such as 

State and local governments with a legitimate need for the information or with the general public who want information on the potential risk chemicals pose. 

About 90 percent of the notices companies have provided to EPA 

on new chemicals contain some information claimed as confidential. 

While companies may be overly using this designation, evaluating 

the appropriateness of such claims presents another burden and is 

something that EPA simply does not have the time and resources 

to pursue. 

Our work clearly shows that EPA does not currently have the authority it needs to develop sufficient information to support critical 

decisions regarding how to protect human health and the environment from toxic chemicals. In our previous reports, we have recommended both statutory and regulatory changes to, one, strengthen EPA’s authority to obtain additional information from the chemical industry; two, shift more of the burden to chemical companies 

for demonstrating the safety of their chemicals; and three, enhance 

the public’s understanding of the risk of chemicals to which they 

may be exposed. 

Without greater attention to EPA’s efforts to assess and control 

toxic chemicals, the Nation lacks assurances that human health 

and the environment are adequately protected. 

That concludes the summary of my statement, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson 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 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Birnbaum, we welcome your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA BIRNBAUM, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Senator Lautenberg, I am pleased to appear before you today to present testimony on our current understanding 

of chemical hazards. 

My name is Linda Birnbaum. I am a Jersey girl, and I am the 

Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences, one of the National Institutes of Health. And I am also 

Director of the National Toxicology Program. 

Environmental health science has made tremendous strides since 

passage of the original Toxic Substances Control Act. To begin 

with, our understanding of chemical toxicity has been challenged 

by the new science of epigenetics. Epigenetics looks at how DNA 

is packaged and how that affects the expression of our genes. Research is showing us that toxic substances in our environment can 

cause epigenetic changes that are passed down for several generations. Unfortunately, it appears that health problems associated 

with these epigenetic changes can also be passed down through 

several generations. This new understanding heightens the need to 

protect our children from dangerous substances at critical times in 

their development. 

Research has shown us that normal development of the fetus, the 

infant and the child can be disrupted by relatively low doses of certain chemicals. These developmental stages are windows of susceptibility or times when people have an increased vulnerability to the 

effects of toxic chemicals. This concept was first established for 

neurodevelopmental toxicants like PCBs, lead, mercury and other 

metals, but it also applies to hormonally active agents such as 

bisphenol A, which we call endocrine disrupting chemicals. 

The NIEHS co-funds with the National Cancer Institute a Breast 

Cancer and Environment Research Program. Researchers in this 

program are determining if windows of susceptibility exist in the 

development of the mammary gland and if exposures to environmental agents during these vulnerable periods of development increases the risk for breast cancer in adulthood. 

Toxicity research must extend to health end points beyond cancer 

and birth defects. For example, NIEHS is supporting research on 

the origins of obesity and the theory that environmental exposures 

during a child’s development play an important role in the current 

epidemic of obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome. There are 

data showing weight gain in rats and mice after developmental exposure to a number of different environmental chemicals. That is 

why we need to start thinking about obesity not just in terms of 

genetics and lifestyle but also in terms of environmental chemicals. 

These kinds of health outcomes will need to be considered in assessing toxicity. 

Furthermore, all of us are exposed to many different chemicals 

at the same time, not just one chemical at a time, the way they 

are usually tested in the lab. Scientists have labored to come up 

with ways to estimate risk from combinations of compounds. One 

example is the method used for dioxin and related compounds. 
153 

Dioxin is a known human carcinogen. Scientists believe that related chemicals such as furans and some PCBs cause cancer in 

similar manners as dioxin. The question for public health officials 

was how health standards could be adjusted to take into account 

the fact that people are always exposed to mixtures of dioxin-like 

compounds, not just one at a time. 

To address this problem, a method was developed to estimate 

toxicity of mixtures of dioxin-like compounds based on toxic equivalency factors. The methodology was tested and confirmed by the 

NTP, by EPA and others. Now, this methodology is also applied to 

other health end points, including reproductive and developmental, 

immune and neurological. 

The route of exposure must also be considered. For example, initial studies on the inhalation of hexavalent chromium showed it 

causes lung cancer in humans, but there was question whether its 

presence in drinking water was a problem when the chemical was 

ingested. 

Additional studies by the NTP showed that oral consumption of 

hexavalent chromium causes cancer in laboratory animals at concentrations that are not much higher than what can be found in 

people. This clearly shows the need to test different routes of chemical exposure when assessing toxicity. 

The EPA’s new arsenic standards for drinking water exemplify 

how our research can inform decisions to protect public health. The 

NIEHS Superfund Research Program, which is authorized by this 

committee, funded research on arsenic metabolism, disease pathogenesis by arsenic, and detailed exposure assessment. These studies provided the scientific basis for a drinking water standard that 

protects Americans against arsenic exposure and resulting health 

problems such as cancer, diabetes, neurological and cardiovascular 

disease. 

TSCA reform can be built upon vastly improved and less expensive toxicological testing methods. The NTP is laying the foundation for this testing paradigm in partnership with the National 

Human Genome Research Institute and the EPA. The new methods 

for quantitative high throughput screening assays can be used to 

test a large number of chemicals simultaneously, dramatically increasing the rate at which chemicals can be prioritized for further 

testing. 

Over the past 33 years, we have significantly expanded our understanding of chemical exposures and health. It only stands to 

reason that TSCA would at some point be updated to account for 

scientific progress. We must have the ability to harness new technologies and our growing knowledge. We are poised to move forward, and new tools will provide for research and development to 

create the comprehensive testing our citizens deserve under revitalized TSCA. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Birnbaum follows:] 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you both. Again, not for your endurance, but your wonderful testimony. We appreciate it. 

I wanted to just ask a couple of questions. First of all, an observation, Dr. Birnbaum. As you recite these connections between the 

materials and the result, I feel like we are using time that we 

ought to be getting the law polished up and get it into place in a 

hurry. 

And thank you, Mr. Stephenson. I understand that I pronounced 

your name incorrectly, and please forgive me. It happens to me a 

lot. 

The bio-monitoring studies have found that bodies of Americans 

contain hundreds of industrial chemicals, including some that are 

known or suspected to cause cancer. Should TSCA be reformed to 

give EPA better authority to restrict chemicals that are found in 

humans and known to cause health problems? Can enough research be done, or done reliably, to say that because it has already 

got a presence that we have noted, that EPA should be able to use 

that information and go-ahead and particularly go to those chemicals, restrict them from use? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, the 83,000 number of existing chemicals 

is kind of daunting. It is overwhelming. So we are supportive of a 

risk-based approach. Look at where the science is the strongest, 

where the chemicals are the most dangerous. 

What we are suggesting, though, is the legislation needs to be 

overhauled to make it easier for EPA to get data from the chemical 

industry to make it easier to require testing of certain chemicals 

it deems dangerous. And we think there are changes in the language in the law that can make it more consistent with other 

pieces of legislation that don’t have such a high legal threshold, 

which will in essence give EPA better tools with which to do its job. 

So they have to work their way through this list of chemicals. 

Best guesses are that may be 20 percent of those are still in use 

today. A lot of these, 60,000 of these were grandfathered in 1976 

when the legislation was passed. Are they still in use? We really 

don’t know. 

So there needs to be a vetting process to get it down to a manageable number first and then those have some kind of risk-based 

approach based on volume, based on uses, based on known scientific risk where they can use that to then start putting controls 

on those chemicals. And the legislation needs to be reduced for putting controls on chemicals to lower that legal threshold as well. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am an author of some legislation called 

the Right To Know, and that here we are. People have a right to 

know what the products they are using are dangerous in any way, 

and particularly as we look at infants and see, because of their susceptibility, and see that it doesn’t often take a lot to do a lot of 

damage, a large quantity. 

Dr. Birnbaum, new techniques for testing the toxicity of chemicals are being developed so that scientists can obtain faster and 

more accurate results without relying on animal testing. Now, 

what might Congress do to accelerate the development and use of 

these 21st century testing techniques? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I think it is very important to understand that 

the TOX–21 Program in which we are involved provides great 
167 

promise for the future. At this point in time, as we begin to generate literally reams and reams of data on thousands of chemicals, 

it will allow us to prioritize which chemicals are the bad actors and 

require more study. 

And frequently, at least for the foreseeable future, some of that 

study will still require testing in animals. But we will be testing 

faster and smarter, and we will be testing the chemicals that are 

of greatest concern. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We have awaited EPA’s assessment of the 

safety of certain chemicals for many years. By way of example, 

EPA’s assessment of dioxin, one of the most potent toxins on the 

planet, has taken more than 18 years. Should EPA be able to move 

forward with safety assessments of chemicals in a more timely 

fashion, even in the face of uncertainty about some of the details 

of the chemicals’ risk? 

Mr. Stephenson. Or Dr. Birnbaum. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Well, I just think the point is, science never provides 100 percent certainty, and I think it is very important that 

decisions be made in the presence of evidence, but not necessarily 

in the presence of certainty because that just doesn’t happen with 

science. 

The more that you know, the more questions you have. And if 

you use dioxin as an example, the conclusions of EPA’s draft reassessment, which I believe the Administrator has promised to finalize by the end of this year or shortly thereafter, has changed very 

little from the conclusions that were reached by an external peer 

panel, the first panel, in 1992, supported by an external panel in 

1994 and again by an external panel in 2000. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. If I could add, Mr. Chairman, the other part 

of this we haven’t talked a lot about today is the integrated risk 

information system, which is EPA’s process for managing scientific 

risk assessments of toxic chemicals. We have issued many reports 

on that and attempted to get EPA to streamline that as well. 

Administrator Jackson announced a new process about 6 months 

ago which looks very promising. In its first test, they just put out 

a draft assessment on TCE, where all of the agency comments, including OMB’s and DOD’s and everyone else’s are available for 

public scrutiny. That is real progress in terms of transparency in 

science from the old process that it replaced. 

So we are encouraged by that whole risk assessment process, but 

we still think it takes too long. As you mentioned, it takes years 

and years to complete a scientific risk assessment of a given chemical. And so we have offered in our reports over the years, ways in 

which we think that process can be streamlined. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, because you said overwhelming, 

80,000∂, I mean. By the time you get to these, and again the first 

year out to understand whether or not they are still around. Maybe 

there are 60,000 of them that aren’t used, not likely, used anymore. 

And also the addition of new items, as 700 a year is the estimate 

of new chemicals that are introduced every year. 

So that means that if you only did 1,000 a year, you would barely 

stay ahead of the growth. And these products I think are important, can be very important as an addition to good health, but they 

have to be looked at. And frankly, I don’t know how they are going 
168 

to manage this data base. It is a huge one, but it can be done, and 

we must do it in the interest of public health. 

Dr. Birnbaum, chemicals called PBTs buildup in our bodies, fail 

to break down over time, are known to be toxic. Other governments 

have taken action to restrict most uses of these PBTs without putting those chemicals through a traditional risk assessment process. 

Might we provide a pathway for action to reduce the use of PBTs 

quickly, without waiting for the risk assessment to run its course? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Many of the countries of the world have accepted 

the fact that any chemical which is highly persistent and highly 

bioaccumulative will become toxic at some concentration. And in 

fact they utilize, in many cases appropriately, the precautionary 

principle to say that evidence of overwhelming persistence and bioaccumulation, even in the absence of full toxicity information, is 

enough to know that it is not a chemical that we want. 

And I can say that there probably, or that we know that there 

are many chemicals that industry started development on and because they were new chemicals, they found that they were persistent, or had the potential to be persistent, had the potential to 

bioaccumulative, and in many cases had potential to be toxic, those 

chemicals never entered the marketplace. 

And I think part of the problem has been that existing chemicals 

were not required to be examined with the same lens that new 

chemicals were looked at. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. What responsibilities do the primary 

developers of these products have on their own to do health analysis? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, right now, I mean, the manufacturer is 

required to submit what is called a pre-manufacturing notice, 

which gives a little bit of information about the chemical. But certainly, they aren’t required to provide any test data to show the 

safety of that chemical right now. The burden is essentially on EPA 

to show that the chemical is risky before they can require further 

test data from the industry. 

That is what we mean by there needs to be a little bit of burden 

shifting off of the Government and the taxpayer and onto the 

chemical industry who is producing these chemicals. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. And there is an old expression about 

polluter pays, and I don’t see a lot of difference here. It is certainly 

something that deserves attention because, A, it expedites the process and reduces the risk to the public. And so whatever we can do 

there, because the task of analyzing all these, the products that 

have accumulated, their recognition over lots and lots of years, but 

it is so overpowering, I mean, to analyze that we ought to find 

ways to cut into that. 

Well, that is why the law is written. I thank you both for your 

attention and your willingness to stay so long, and excellent data. 

And we will keep the record open so that if any of the members 

of the committee have any questions they would like answered, we 

will hold it open for 2 weeks, so that if you get an inquiry, please 

respond. 

And I enter into the record, to close this meeting, a letter that 

has come from the Consumer Specialty Products Association, called 

CSPA, Grocery Manufacturers Association, GMA, and the Soap and 
169 

Detergent Association, are pleased that the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works has scheduled today’s hearing concerning the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

These are the people who are making and selling products, and 

they support the modernization of TSCA and continue to urge Congress to establish a stakeholder process to develop the most comprehensive chemicals management policy in the world. And that is 

part of the record. 

[The referenced letter follows:] 
170 
171 
172 
173 

Senator LAUTENBERG. It has been a very good hearing, and I 

thank all of you for your contributions. 

Those of you who were stuck with the seats there by either commitment to your client, representative or otherwise, we are glad 

you are here, too. 

Thank you all very much. 

This meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m. the committee and subcommittee were 

adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

I am very pleased that the committee is considering the effectiveness and status 

of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The Toxic Substances Control Act was adopted 

in 1976 and was intended to establish protective regulations to prevent harmful exposure to chemicals of various types. Today, I look forward to hearing the assessment from our witnesses as to the effectiveness of this statute at achieving its goals. 

Based on the testimony submitted to the committee, it is clear that there have been 

some difficulties with the implementation of TSCA. I am particularly struck by the 

issues surrounding the use of TSCA to regulate asbestos. 

Montanans know about the harmful effects of asbestos. We know because of 

Libby. For those of you who don’t know about Libby, Montana, it is a tragic story 

that evidences the devastating impact that asbestos exposure can have in one community. 

Libby, Montana, is a beautiful little town in northwestern Montana. It is surrounded by millions of acres of Federal forest lands. It is a Superfund site where 

hundreds of people have been sickened and died because of the pervasive presence 

of asbestos spewed from the vermiculite mining and milling operations of W.R. 

Grace. For decades, the W.R. Grace operation belched thousands and thousands of 

pounds of asbestos contaminated dust into the air in and around Libby, coating the 

town and its inhabitants with the deadly substance. People used expanded 

vermiculite to fill their gardens, their driveways, the high school track, the little 

league field, and in their attics. Mineworkers brought the dust home with them on 

their clothing and contaminated their own families without knowing that this dust 

was poison. Asbestos was everywhere in Libby, for decades. 

The type of asbestos in Libby is particularly deadly. The tremolite asbestos fibers 

found here quickly find their way into victims’ lungs and stay there—essentially a 

time bomb waiting to strike. The impact on Libby has been severe. Today, we know 

that over 200 residents of Libby have died, and thousands are sickened with asbestos-related disease. 

The experience in Libby is truly unique. It is, in fact, so unique that earlier this 

year EPA Administrator Jackson declared Libby to be a ‘‘public health emergency’’— 

a distinction under the Superfund statute reserved for the most extreme cases, 

where the public health threat is so severe that special action is required to mitigate 

the immediate threat. EPA has never before used this authority, and the Agency 

indicates that there are currently no sites on the books that come close to the conditions at Libby. 

There is no question that asbestos exposure leads to respiratory disease, mesothelioma, and ultimately death. No one knows this better than the people of Libby, 

Montana. 

Yet, in spite of everything we know about the hazards of asbestos, in spite of a 

10-year analysis and a 45,000-page record produced by EPA, the Agency was precluded from moving forward with an asbestos ban under a Court interpretation of 

TSCA. I am not an expert on every element of this analysis or every detail of the 

legal opinion in that case. However, I do know this—asbestos is deadly, no matter 

where it is used. The people of Libby, Montana, know this better than anyone. If 

TSCA, which was intended to give the Agency the authority to control toxic substances, cannot be effectively used to address even the obvious hazards posed by asbestos, it is certainly appropriate for this committee to review the statute to determine if changes are warranted. I do not have the answers as to what the appropriate course of action is, but we clearly need to re-look at the effectiveness of 

TSCA. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and the committee’s 

work on this topic. 
174 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you, Chairman Lautenberg and Chairman Boxer, for holding this important hearing. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was landmark legislation 

toward reducing toxic risk to public health and the environment when it was first 

signed into law in 1976. 

Unfortunately, since its inception, the statute has failed to address its stated purpose because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was never given the authority, resources and access to information needed to carry out the mission of truly 

regulating the chemicals in our environment. For decades now this committee has 

heard testimony from representatives of multiple Administrations and other stakeholders about the shortcomings of the law and its implementation. 

In fact, 29 years ago, the General Accounting Office penned their initial report 

regarding TSCA titled ‘‘EPA Slow To Carry Out Its Responsibility To Control Harmful Chemicals.’’ Three decades later, we have not progressed. As a mother and Senator representing the State of New York, TSCA is a particularly important issue to 

me and my constituents. 

A short drive from my home in Upstate New York is the town of Fort Edward 

in Washington County. Apart from its importance as a focal point in the French and 

Indian Wars and the War of Independence, Fort Edward is also critically important 

to the history of the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is in Fort Edward where over 

1.3 million pounds of polychlorinated biphenyl, better known as PCBs, were dumped 

into the Hudson River. 

According to EPA studies, PCBs are a probable human carcinogen and also can 

cause a number of serious non-cancer health effects to human immune, reproductive, nervous and endocrine systems. It was the high levels of PCBs found in fish 

in the Hudson River that raised flags about the effects that this chemical has on 

human and environmental health and led to its banning in the original legislation. 

Thirty years later, TSCA has only been able to examine and ban 5 chemicals out 

of the more than 80,000 currently in the marketplace. The vast majority of those 

chemicals have not even received the minimum level of scrutiny because of the lack 

of resources and access to critical information. 

This summer, I authored an amendment as part of the Water Infrastructure Financing Act that calls for a comprehensive study of the presence of pharmaceuticals 

and personal care products in waters of the United States. This proposed study was 

born out of a number of investigations conducted by various agencies as well as a 

series of articles from the Associated Press that found traces of a number of chemicals and drugs in waters in my State of New York and across the country. The studies have shown troubling effects in wildlife, but we do not have comprehensive data 

as to the health effects on humans who rely on those waters. 

We also do not have definitive information as to how the chemicals get into the 

water; are they from consumers, manufacturing, agricultural use? 

In regard to our work on this important legislation, it is critical that we give regulators the authority, access to information and resources to prevent harmful chemicals from entering into our environment. Doing so will minimize risk to our environment and prevent health concerns in our communities. 

Earlier this year, I cosponsored legislation with my colleagues Senator Feinstein 

and Senator Schumer that examines one chemical in particular, Bisphenol-A, better 

known as BPA. This chemical has gained a lot of attention lately because of recent 

scientific studies and possible links to breast cancer, obesity and neurological disorders. This fall, Administrator Jackson, you announced that BPA would be one of 

five chemicals included on an action list of chemicals of concern. My hope is that 

even with the current obstacles the EPA is facing under the current statute, that 

you will be able to proceed with this critical investigation. 

As we consider ways to modernize TSCA, we must use the best science to dictate 

our efforts. We must learn from the failures of the past to ensure timely consideration and regulation of these chemicals. We must put forward the resources to ensure that regulators can do the work that Congress asks of them. We must work 

with industry to promote the development of new products that are both competitive 

in a global economy and safe for consumers. 

I look forward to working with my subcommittee Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, 

and my fellow Senators as we develop the legislative text that will modernize this 

program and achieve the protections that the American people need. 

Thank you. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 

Æ