19–010 ★ (Star Print) 

Calendar No. 514 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 112–213 

STRENGTHENING PROTECTIONS FOR CHILDREN AND 

COMMUNITIES FROM DISEASE CLUSTERS ACT 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 76] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 76) to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate and address cancer and 

disease clusters, including in infants and children, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 

recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to investigate and address cancer and disease clusters, including in infants and children. 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

S. 76 seeks to increase the transparency, accountability and coordination of federal actions to investigate and address cancer and 

disease clusters. The bill authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate and address cancer and 

disease clusters, in conjunction with other federal public health 

agencies. The bill also increases the involvement of the public in 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 

2 

participating in disease cluster investigations and actions to address the potential causes of such clusters. 

The need to modernize and update the federal government’s approach to addressing disease clusters is clear. Over the last century, society has made tremendous advances in public health protections. Clean drinking and wastewater systems have reduced the 

number of people who die from typhoid and cholera. New medical 

systems, including early detection techniques, have helped to reduce deaths from heart disease and stroke. However, studies have 

shown the rates of some diseases have increased and the rates of 

other diseases, and associated deaths, still impact significant numbers of people, including children. 

For example, according to the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), from 1975 to 2007, rates of childhood cancer have increased 

by almost 30 percent. Leukemia is the most common form of childhood cancer, accounting for 20 percent of the incidences. Between 

1976 and 2005 there was a 24 percent increase in acute 

lymphoblastic leukemia in children. 

According to the National Cancer Institute, roughly 2,200 children a year are diagnosed with cancer of the central nervous system, including of the brain and brain stem. The Department of 

Health and Human Services has found that birth defects are the 

leading cause of infant death in the first year of life, accounting for 

about 20 percent of infant deaths in 2006. 

Diseases can have complex causes and researchers can have 

great difficulty fully describing the factors that cause children and 

other people to contract cancer and other illnesses. Experts focus 

on multiple potential causes, which often involve both environmental and genetic factors. 

Recently, the President’s Cancer Panel issued its 2008–2009 annual report, titled: ‘‘Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What 

We Can Do Now.’’ The report states that: 

‘‘In 2009 alone, approximately 1.5 million American 

men, women, and children were diagnosed with cancer, 

and 562,000 died from the disease. With the growing body 

of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer, the 

public is becoming increasingly aware of the unacceptable 

burden of cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented through 

appropriate national action.’’ 

The President’s Cancer Panel went on to highlight the need to 

more fully address environmental links to cancer: ‘‘The Panel was 

particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. . . . The 

Panel urges you [the President] most strongly to use the power of 

your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our 

food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.’’ 

The Committee also received testimony from people who have 

been impacted by childhood disease. The Committee notes the testimony of Mr. Trevor Schaefer, who is a twenty-one-year-old brain 

cancer survivor from McCall, ID. Mr. Schaefer was diagnosed with 

a malignant medullablastoma in November of 2002 at the age of 

thirteen. He successfully fought the disease following treatment for 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 

3 

his cancer and, thereafter, has helped to lead efforts to address the 

causes of childhood disease clusters. S. 76, which is also known as 

‘‘Trevor’s Law,’’ is designed to help children and other people like 

Mr. Schaefer who are affected by disease clusters. 

To accomplish goal, the bill seeks to strengthen federal agency 

coordination and accountability when investigating and helping to 

address potential disease clusters; increase resources to communities who may be impacted by potential disease clusters, including 

by providing for community-based committees that play an integral 

role in actions to investigate and help address such clusters; and 

enhance federal, state and academic capacity to investigate and 

help address such clusters, including through partnerships and 

grants and by developing new pollution and disease tracking tools 

to facilitate investigation and actions to address clusters. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 provides that the short title of the bill is the ’’Strengthening Protections for Children and Communities From Disease 

Clusters Act’’. 

Sec. 2. Findings 

Section 2 contains the findings made to highlight the need for 

the bill and the actions authorized by the bill. 

Sec. 3. Purposes 

Section 3 defines the purposes for which the bill was created. 

Sec. 4. Goals 

Section 4 defines the goals that the bill seeks to achieve. 

Sec. 5. Definitions 

Section 5 contains the definitions of the bill. 

Sec. 6. Guidelines for environmental investigations of disease clusters 

Section 6 describes the establishment and requirements for federal disease cluster investigation guidelines. 

Subsection (a) directs the Administrator of the EPA, in consultation with the Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and 

the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences to develop, publish, and periodically update guidelines 

that describe a systematic, integrated approach that uses the best 

available science to investigate suspected or potential disease clusters, environmental pollutants or toxic substances associated with 

one or more suspected or potential disease clusters, or the potential 

causes of such clusters. 

Subsection (b) describes the requirements for these guidelines, 

including the definition of key concepts and actions; identification 

and reporting protocols; standardized methods of reviewing and 

categorizing data, guidance for using, in a health-protective way, 

an appropriate epidemiological, statistical, or other approach for 

the circumstances of an investigation; procedures for peer review of 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 

4 

key documents by individuals who have no direct or indirect conflict of interest; and a description of roles and responsibilities of 

federal agencies in conducting investigations. 

Subsection (c) describes the timing for the proposed and final 

guidelines. 

Sec. 7. Enhanced support for environmental investigations of disease clusters 

Subsection (a) describes the establishment of regional disease 

cluster information and response centers and teams. The subsection describes the federal agencies included in the process of creating these administrative structures and, to promote accountability and transparency, makes the Administrator of the EPA 

principally responsible for directing, coordinating and approving 

federal authorized under this section. This subsection also describes the coordination, grants and cooperative agreements, timing 

of creation, and the authorization of appropriations for these activities. 

Subsection (b) describes the response teams’ membership and 

leadership structure and the activities authorized to be undertaken 

by the teams. The subsection provides for a petition process to request that a response team conduct an investigation or take other 

action to address the potential causes of disease clusters, and requires the issuance of criteria for the consideration of such petitions. The subsection describes the response teams’ use of data and 

the requirements for transparency and accountability in conducting 

their activities. The subsection also provides for the creation of a 

database to assist the response teams and other efforts in investigating and addressing disease clusters. 

Subsection (c) describes the creation of community disease cluster advisory committees that are created to provide oversight, guidance, and advice relating to the investigation of suspected and potential disease clusters, and for other purposes. The subsection describes the membership of the committees and prohibits direct and 

indirect conflicts of interest by such members. The subsection authorized technical assistance, including grants, to groups of individuals that may be affected by a suspected or potential disease cluster and allows such grants to be used to facilitate active involvement in all aspects of Committee activities and to assist Committee 

members in obtaining technical assistance in interpreting information related to the investigation of suspected or potential disease 

clusters, and for other purposes. 

Subsection (d) describes the types of environmental research and 

analysis authorities that federal agencies shall utilize when undertaking authorized activities. 

Sec. 8. Federal reports to Congress 

Subsection (a) describes the timing of reports to Congress on activities authorized to be undertaken by this bill. 

Subsection (b) describes the types of activities and information 

that should be included in the reports. 

Subsection (c) describes the submission and availability of such 

reports. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 

5 

Sec. 9. Authorization of appropriations 

This section authorizes appropriations as are necessary to carry 

out this Act. 

Sec. 10. Effect on other laws 

This section states that nothing in this Act modifies, limits, or 

otherwise affects the application of, or obligation to comply with, 

any law, including any environmental or public health law. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 76 was introduced by Senator Boxer on January 25, 2011. The 

bill was received, read twice, and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. On June 9, 2011, the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works met to consider the bill. The bill 

was ordered reported favorably without amendment by voice vote. 

HEARINGS

In the 112th Congress, on March 29, 2011, the full Committee 

on Environment and Public Works held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Oversight Hearing on Disease Clusters and Environmental Health.’’ 

ROLLCALL VOTES

The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to consider S. 76 on June 9, 2011. The bill was ordered reported favorably by a vote of 11 yeas to 7 nays. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes evaluation of the regulatory impact of the reported bill. The Committee finds that this 

legislation does not have substantial regulatory impacts. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4), the Committee finds that this legislation does not 

impose intergovernmental mandates or private sector mandates as 

those terms are defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). The Congressional Budget Office concurs, finding S. 76 

contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, 

or tribal governments. 

JUNE 22, 2011. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 76, the Strengthening 

Protections for Children and Communities from Disease Clusters 

Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne Mehlman. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 

6 

Enclosure. 

S. 76—Strengthening Protections for Children and Communities 

from Disease Clusters Act 

Summary: S. 76 would require the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to develop guidelines for establishing a systematic 

and integrated approach to investigating suspected disease clusters. (Disease clusters are defined as the occurrence of a greaterthan-expected number of cases of a particular disease within a 

group of individuals, geographical area, or time period.) This legislation also would require EPA to establish and operate two regional 

response centers and response teams to investigate potential disease clusters or environmental pollutants or toxic substances associated with those disease clusters. In addition, S. 76 would authorize EPA to provide grants and enter into cooperative agreements 

with institutions of higher education to support research and operational activities performed by the response teams. Under the bill, 

EPA also could make technical assistance grants to any group of 

individuals affected by a suspected disease cluster. 

Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that implementing S. 76 would cost about $76 million over the 2012–2016 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts. That funding would provide for additional personnel, contractors, grants and 

cooperative agreements, and other administrative activities. 

Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to this legislation because 

enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

S. 76 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and 

would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 76 is shown in the following table. The costs of 

this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012– 

2016 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Institutions of Higher 

Learning: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 5 5 5 5 5 25 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 2 4 5 5 5 21 

Grants to Affected Groups: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 0 4 4 4 4 16 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 0 4 4 4 4 16 

Support for Response Centers and Teams: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 4 4 4 4 4 20 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 3 4 4 4 4 19 

Other EPA Administrative Support: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 4 4 4 4 4 20 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 4 4 4 4 4 20 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level .................................... 13 17 17 17 17 81 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................... 9 16 17 17 17 76 

Note: EPA = Environmental Protection Agency. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 

7 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 76 will 

be enacted by the end of fiscal year 2011 and that the necessary 

amounts will be appropriated each year. 

Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that in 2012 

EPA would spend about $9 million to establish the guidelines for 

investigating disease clusters and to establish and provide some 

initial support for the response centers and teams responsible for 

investigating those disease clusters. Included in that cost is funding for about 25 additional personnel, contractors, a small number 

of grants and cooperative agreements for institutions of higher 

learning, and other administrative support. In subsequent years 

when the response centers and teams are fully operational, CBO 

expects that EPA would spend additional resources to provide 

grants and enter into cooperative agreements with institutions of 

higher education to support those response centers and teams and 

to provide grants to affected groups. As a result, EPA’s costs would 

increase to $16 million in 2013 and $17 million annually in subsequent years. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 76 contains no 

intergovernmental mandates or private-sector mandates as defined 

in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. State, local, and tribal governments could receive grants 

and technical assistance authorized by the bill. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Spending: Susanne Mehlman; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact 

on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 

(8) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS INHOFE, VITTER 

Protecting communities including pregnant women, infants, and 

children is of the utmost importance. Physicians and local public 

health departments are on the front lines of caring for these communities and vulnerable subpopulations while defending them from 

illness and diseases every day. A ‘‘cluster’’ is defined by the Center 

for Disease Control (CDC) as ‘‘an unusual aggregation, real or perceived, of health events that are grouped together in time and 

space and that is reported to a public health department.’’ 

Currently, at the federal level, CDC through the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) investigates and addresses cancer and disease clusters. ATSDR is an agency with a 

long history in public health and possesses the expertise and 

knowledge necessary to identify and deal with disease clusters. It 

has an existing infrastructure that facilitates cooperation between 

states and local public health departments, as well as local physicians communication ATSDR has labeled ‘‘essential in recognizing 

and responding to disease cluster concerns.’’ ATSDR has also outlined procedures for investigating disease clusters at the federal, 

state, and local levels. 

S. 76, the ‘‘Strengthening Protections for Children and Communities from Disease Clusters Act,’’ needlessly shifts authorities 

away from local and federal public health experts at the CDC, 

ATSDR, and public health departments, to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a regulatory agency with far less expertise 

and experience in identifying and responding to disease clusters. 

This legislation ignores the critical roles of CDC and ATSDR, but 

also of local doctors as well as public health departments in dealing 

with disease clusters in favor of a top down bureaucratic approach. 

Local physicians have the primary role in confirming diagnosis and 

completing applicable exposure histories as well as recognizing abnormal event patterns. This information is then reported to the appropriate local public health departments who have a critical role 

of their own in the investigation of disease clusters. They collect 

case information, conduct local surveillance and surveys, conduct 

environmental and occupational exposure assessments, ensure appropriate communication and education of the public as well as 

health professionals, and initiate effective and timely actions to 

allay potential factors associated with disease clusters. 

The stated purposes of this bill are to provide the EPA Administrator with broad new authorities ‘‘to help conduct investigations’’ 

and ‘‘to undertake actions’’ to help investigate and address ‘‘potential environmental pollution and toxic substances that may contribute to the creation of disease clusters.’’ Inclusion of ‘‘potential’’ 

is highly problematic. Potential refers to the possibility of a relationship, not likelihood. This would direct EPA onto ‘‘fishing expeditions’’ in search of ‘‘potential’’ chemical ‘‘causes’’ of disease clusrfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 

9 

ters. It is at odds with EPA’s expertise in risk assessment, under 

which EPA incorporates chemical specific hazard and exposure information developed under validated laboratory screens, tests and 

assessment of potential exposures, to determine the potential risk 

of harm from a specific exposure to a chemical substance. These 

risk assessments do not identify causes of disease and thus EPA’s 

chemical specific risk assessment expertise is not readily 

transferrable to investigations of disease clusters. That expertise is 

held by physicians and public health agencies. Under S. 76, there 

is no requirement to show causality at all, let alone a rigorous 

weight of evidence assessment. EPA is given, by a literal reading, 

almost limitless authority. This new authority is nothing more 

than an attempt to circumvent appropriate jurisdictional and congressional limitations on the EPA, The foremost enumerated goal 

of this legislation is to protect individuals ‘‘who have been, are, or 

could be harmed by, and become part of, a disease cluster.’’ Reading that goal literally, who does not meet the criteria of someone 

who ‘‘could be harmed by, and become part of, a disease cluster?’’ 

Throughout this legislation, the rightful responsibilities of Congress are intentionally subrogated to the EPA, allowing the Agency 

great discretion in defining key terms, and even its own authorities. S. 76 assigns unelected EPA bureaucrats the lead role in implementing broad and vague authorities in any manner they desire. 

In S. 76, there is no definition of the term ‘‘disease.’’ The term 

‘‘disease cluster’’ is loosely defined in part as ‘‘the occurrence of a 

greater-than-expected number of cases of a particular disease within a group of individuals, a geographical area, or period of time.’’ 

There is no reference to how or where the ‘‘greater-than-expected’’ 

determination should be scientifically determined. Moreover, to determine expected numbers would require an immense database on 

the distributions of an array of various health endpoints, taking 

into account population statistics and comparative prevalence of 

disease within each subpopulation. This database simply does not 

exist. The definition goes on to also include ‘‘the occurrence of a 

particular disease in such number of cases, or meeting such other 

criteria, as the Administrator . . . may determine,’’ leaving EPA in 

consultation with ATSDR and the Director of the National Institute 

of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)—limitless discretion to 

label virtually any situation as a ‘‘disease cluster.’’ 

The terms ‘‘environmental pollutants or toxic substances’’ and 

‘‘potential causes of a disease cluster’’ are defined similarly to include as wide a range as possible, including contaminants and pollutants regulated by the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water 

Acts. While these are established environmental pollutants, this 

definition also includes any chemical substance regulated under 

the Toxic Substances Control Act regardless of any scientific findings that such substances are either toxic or pose significant exposures to humans. 

Under Section 6 of S. 76, the EPA Administrator is also in the 

lead role of developing guidelines for disease cluster investigations. 

These guidelines include defining ‘‘key concepts and actions,’’ developing ‘‘disease cluster identification and reporting protocols,’’ and 

‘‘guidance for using . . . appropriate epidemiological, statistical, or 

other approach for the circumstances of an investigation’’ in a 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 

10 

‘‘health-protective way.’’ This is extremely troubling, as the term 

‘‘health-protective’’ is not defined and is open for interpretation, appearing to steer investigations on the use of overly conservative 

risk models and assumptions that are often controversial rather 

than the best available science. These guidelines further go on to 

include allowing the EPA Administrator the lead in assigning the 

‘‘roles and responsibilities’’ of federal officials and creating ‘‘procedures for peer review’’ that have no prohibition on individuals who 

possess a blatant appearance of partiality. 

EPA’s largely unfettered grant of power continues into Section 7, 

entitled ‘‘Enhanced Support for Environmental Investigations of 

Disease Clusters.’’ This section directs the Agency to lead in the establishment and operation of Regional Disease Cluster Information 

and Response Centers (‘‘Response Centers’’) and Regional Disease 

Cluster Information and Response Teams (‘‘Response Teams’’). 

Under the subsection (a)(1)(B), the EPA Administrator is directed 

to ‘‘be principally responsible for directing, coordinating, and approving Federal efforts and assistance authorized under this section.’’ 

The Response Teams, whose scope of activities are established 

through an EPA-led consultation process, are to be staffed using a 

loose set of criteria including requirements of individuals with 

‘‘community outreach’’ experience. Similarly to S. 76’s peer review 

criteria, Response Team membership has no prohibition against a 

lack of appearance of impartiality. One of the Response Teams’ primary responsibilities is responding to petitions from ‘‘any person 

. . . that requests that a Response team conduct an investigation 

or take other action to address the potential causes of disease clusters in accordance with this Act.’’ These responses are regarding 

the broadly-labeled need ‘‘to investigate suspected or potential disease clusters, environmental pollutants or toxic substances associated with these disease clusters, and potential causes of disease 

clusters.’’ 

Petitions made to Response Teams are to be considered using criteria to be established through an EPA-led process, again using 

‘‘health-protective factors’’ rather than the best available science. 

Considerations are also required to include evidence of environmental releases of substances without any reference to human 

health impacts and the blanket provision including ‘‘such other factors as the Administrator determines are necessary.’’ This fails to 

recognize that there are many biological steps that must occur before exposure to a chemical or substance can cause an adverse outcome and it is imperative not to make blanket presuppositions that 

any exposure to any chemical or substance necessarily causes 

harm. Furthermore, this approach seems to grossly discount factors 

recognized by the National Cancer Institute and other reputable 

health based scientific organizations that potential causes for cancer and disease clusters such as heredity and behavior and lifestyle 

including diet, use of tobacco, drugs, alcohol, and even exposure to 

sunlight. 

Another troubling piece of this legislation is Section 7’s requirement of a public database. While there is an important need for 

government transparency, there is also a need to recognize the serious potential for harm to be caused by disseminating inaccurate 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 

11 

and incomplete information. The required database would be publically accessible through the internet and provide information relating to ongoing incomplete reports, substances and illnesses ‘‘associated with suspected or potential disease clusters’’ regardless if 

this information is irrefutably shown later to have been groundless—and often with disease cluster allegations, that is the conclusion. Such a database, then, could serve as an unsubstantiated inventory of chemicals for people to fear unnecessarily and even as 

a list of chemicals for businesses to avoid absent any scientific 

basis. These are just some of the potential pitfalls of this database 

that could have devastating impacts on local economies, businesses, 

and home values, often with absolutely no demonstrable health 

benefits. 

In further attempt to usurp and/or duplicate the authorities of 

other Federal Agencies and increase the bureaucratic expansion of 

EPA, this bill requires the EPA Administrator alone to establish 

Community Disease Cluster Advisory Committees. The purpose of 

these committees is to ‘‘provide oversight, guidance, and advice’’ relating to the investigations of suspected and potential disease clusters and associated causes or pollutants. These committees too are 

required to have be comprised of a loosely defined membership 

which includes any individuals ‘‘as determined by the Administrator’’ of EPA along with some consultation. Of most concern is 

the broad required membership category which includes ‘‘individuals who are or may be impacted by a suspected or potential disease cluster, and the designee of such an individual who may participate with or in the place of such and individual.’’ This loose definition could include almost anyone and to make matters even more 

troubling, it includes any individuals ‘‘designee’’ which could encompass activists from outside of the communities or investigated 

areas. 

Finally, this bill provides no express opportunity for judicial review of any determinations made, and there is no requirement for 

EPA or any other Federal Agency to do any sort of economic analysis considering potential job losses and associated health impacts 

resulting from the implementation of any potential actions stemming from S. 76. Within S. 76, there are some areas requiring EPA 

and other federal agencies to provide for public notice of draft criteria and guidelines and some minimal opportunity for public comment; however, the timeframe for responses is too short to solicit 

meaningful review, and there is no requirement for the agencies to 

respond to any substantive comments. 

It is vitally important that we continue our efforts to identify, 

treat, and diagnose disease clusters using the best available 

science. S. 76 is nothing more than a misguided attempt to take 

authority away from science based public health and disease experts and give it to a regulatory agency far less qualified for the 

job. 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 

12 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made by 

the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no changes to 

existing law. 

Æ 

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with