S. HRG. 114–225 

BUSINESS MEETING 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 28–29, 2015 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
BUSINESS MEETING: APRIL 28–29, 2015 
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

99–690 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–225 

BUSINESS MEETING 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 28–29, 2015 

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 FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 28–29, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 6 

Booker, Hon. Cory A., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey, prepared 

statement on S. 697 ............................................................................................. 227 

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

statement on: ........................................................................................................

S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century 

Act .................................................................................................................. 290 

S. 544, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 ............................................... 310 

S. 653, the Water Resources Research Amendments Act of 2015 ................ 320 

LEGISLATION 

Text of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 697 offered by 

Senator Udall ....................................................................................................... 33 

Text of the amendment to S. 697 offered by Senator Gillibrand ......................... 214 

Text of the amendment No. 1 to S. 697 offered by Senators Boxer, Sanders, 

and Markey ........................................................................................................... 222 

Text of the amendment No. 1 to S. 697 offered by Senator Markey ................... 231 

Text of the amendment No. 2 to S. 697 offered by Senator Markey ................... 237 

Text of the amendment No. 3 to S. 697 offered by Senators Boxer and 

Carper ................................................................................................................... 242 

Summary, amendment No. 5 to S. 697 offered by Senators Boxer, Markey, 

and Sanders .......................................................................................................... 257 

Text of the amendment No. 5 to S. 697 offered by Senators Boxer, Markey, 

and Sanders .......................................................................................................... 258 

Text of S. 544, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 ..................................... 295–297 

Text of the amendment No. 1 to S. 544 offered by Senators Markey and 

Boxer ..................................................................................................................... 301 

Text of the amendment No. 2 to S. 544 offered by Senators Markey and 

Boxer ..................................................................................................................... 304 

Text of the amendment No. 2 to S. 544 offered by Senators Boxer and 

Markey .................................................................................................................. 307 

Text of S. 653, the Water Resources Research Amendments Act of 

2015.................................................................................................................... 314–318 

Text of Committee Resolutions ............................................................................... 324 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letters: 

International Society for Environmental Epidemiology............................. 359–360 

Nanominerals Corp. et al. ............................................................................ 361–368 

American Association for Justice................................................................. 369–370 

American Statistical Association ................................................................. 372–373 

Coalition for Sensible Safeguards ................................................................... 374 

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ..................... 375–376 

Allergy & Asthma Network et al. ................................................................ 377–378 

American Association for the Advancement of Science.............................. 379–380 

Union of Concerned Scientists ..................................................................... 381–382 

American Association for the Advancement of Science.............................. 386–387 
Page

IV 

—Continued 

BlueGreen Alliance et al............................................................................... 388–389 

Nomination Reference and Report, Mark Scarano to be Federal Cochairperson 

of the Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................... 358 

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy ............................................................................ 371 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, H.R. 1030, the Secret Science 

Reform Act of 2015 ............................................................................................... 383 
(1) 

BUSINESS MEETING 

TUESDAY, APRIL 28–WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Vitter, Barrasso, Boozman, 

Fischer, Crapo, Wicker, Sullivan, Capito, Rounds, Carper, 

Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Sanders, Markey, and Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Our meeting will come to order. We already 

have a pretty good crowd here. This is the first mark-up of the 

EPW committee to order. 

We have a number of items, many of which are bipartisan, which 

we can report out of the committee this morning. Senator 

Barrasso’s bill, S. 544, ensuring data on which EPA bases its regulations are available to the public sector, and I think we may get 

a visitor on that from Representative Lamar Smith, who had the 

bill over in the House. He should be probably coming here for this. 

We have Senator Wicker’s bill, S. 611, to reauthorize the Safe 

Drinking Water Act’s technical assistance and training provision to 

assist small and rural public water systems. This is something that 

is near and dear to me, because Mississippi isn’t that much different from Oklahoma, and that need is there. This is legislation 

that the committee reported last Congress by voice vote. 

Senator Cardin’s and Senator Boozman’s bill to reauthorize 

Water Resources Research Act grants. We have a few naming bills, 

the nomination of Mark Scarano to be Federal co-chairman of the 

Northern Border Regional Commission. And finally GSA resolutions, all of which have already been considered and passed out of 

the T&I Committee over in the House. 

One of the principal items on the agenda is S. 679, the Frank R. 

Lautenberg Chemical Security for the 21st Century Act. It is authored by Senators Vitter and Udall. This is something which has 

been in the works for a long time, and I have often said this is really kind of the legacy of Frank Lautenberg. This legislation is now 

bipartisan. Co-sponsors are equal in number of Democrats and Republicans. It has bipartisan support within this committee. 

In fact, due to the consistent work of Senators Vitter and Udall, 

we now have reached a new amendment or an underlying bill with 
2 

the support of Senators Whitehouse, Booker, and Merkley. I genuinely appreciate their work over the last number of weeks to reach 

this compromise. 

For years, Senator Lautenberg worked to update the 1976 law, 

introducing bills each Congress. He and I met in my office back in 

2012, and it was his idea that we get people together, the stakeholders together, and talk about what should be a part of legislation. Everyone agreed we needed to do something, not exactly what 

it was. So we started working on it at that time. Major environmental laws do not get passed or updated without bipartisan support. And certainly we have that. 

TSCA is long overdue. As Dr. McCabe, the chief medical officer 

of the March of Dimes, testified at our legislative hearing just a 

couple of weeks ago here, ‘‘The current Federal framework for the 

regulation of toxic substances is badly antiquated. The legislation 

before this committee today,’’ referring to this legislation, ‘‘developed by Senators Tom Udall and David Vitter, and co-sponsored by 

numerous other Senators, including the Chairman, represents a 

critical step forward toward establishing a system of chemical regulation that will be protective of maternal and child health.’’ 

Dr. Richard Denison of Environmental Defense Fund testified, 

‘‘The Environmental Defense Fund supports the Lautenberg Act as 

a solid compromise that fixes the biggest problems in the current 

law, is health protective and has the strong bipartisan support necessary to become law.’’ 

Finally, Dr. Lynn Goldman, a former EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 

during the Clinton administration, a former California regulator, 

and perhaps most importantly, a pediatrician, testified the public 

health standard in this bill is ‘‘an immense improvement over current law.’’ She also identified that the bill orders strong chemical 

testing, directs that EPA certify safety of new chemicals, and 

makes more chemical information public. 

This is a bill which has the support of the regulated community, 

environmental community, many in the medical community, and 

bipartisan support in the Senate. We should report it to the full 

Senate so we can consider the bill. 

Senator Boxer. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Colleagues, this is the Environment Committee, not the board 

room of the chemical companies. That is why I am pleased with the 

179-page Vitter amendment as a substitute for S. 697. We are witnessing the death of that original bill, which according to a prize 

winning reporter, was written on the computer of the American 

Chemistry Council. I ask unanimous consent to place in the record 

that article. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced article follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Senator BOXER. That bill is gone, and I give my deepest thanks 

to the many public health organizations, environmental organizations like the Environmental Working Group, NRDC, Safer Chemicals, the Breast Cancer Fund, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, nurses, physicians, the media and individuals like 

Deirdre Imus, Linda Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer. Those individuals and organizations put S. 697, the original bill, front and center 

and, despite its magnificent name, named after one of my most 

dearly beloved colleagues, they saw it for what it was. I ask unanimous consent to place in the record a Chronicle editorial that was 

written after they met with the breast cancer people. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced material follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Senator BOXER. The old bill had, as Senator Whitehouse called 

it, a death zone. The death zone is the period when States cannot 

act to address cancer-causing chemicals. Thanks to all of you who 

were so strong, and particularly those who stood by my side at several press conferences, we have seen great improvements to this 

bill. 

So now in the Vitter amendment, we see fixes to preemption of 

State air and water laws, co-enforcement of chemical restrictions 

by States, removal of a harmful provision that would have undermined the EPA’s ability to restrict imports of dangerous chemicals 

from foreign countries. 

When several colleagues offered to negotiate the changes, I said 

yes. Senators Whitehouse, Merkley and Booker, they worked very 

hard, very hard to improve the bill. I know, because I spoke to 

them almost every day this past week. They came through on those 

fixes that I mentioned, and I thank Senators Vitter and Udall for 

agreeing to them. 

With the Vitter amendment, we are still left with a death zone 

of at least 5 years. What could happen during that time? New scientific evidence could show that a chemical causes cancer, but the 

States can’t act. During the 5-year period, there is a list of conditions that easily could be used to deny a waiver and force the 

States to go to court. 

The House bill, the House bill on TSCA, has no preemption provision. A chemical actually has to be regulated before there is preemption. That is the way it should be, and we have a chance to 

make the important fix with the Gillibrand amendment. I hope we 

will. We all talk about the rights of our States to act to protect 

their people. Let’s prove that we mean it when we say States’ 

rights, and support Senator Gillibrand. Let’s not have Big Brother 

tell the States they have no right to act to protect their citizens. 

You know when our States act, we all benefit. When Minnesota 

took first steps to ban BPA in baby bottles, and the State of Washington took the lead on restricting the use of brain-toxic lead in 

jewelry, and my home State spearheaded the effort to restrict the 

use of cancer-causing formaldehyde in wood products, that benefited the entire Nation, the entire Nation. 

I also don’t understand why in the new Vitter substitute there 

is not even a mention of asbestos, the most dangerous substance. 

It takes 10,000 lives a year; no mention of it in the substitute. 

The new Vitter amendment left out action also on cancer clusters 

and chemical spills in drinking water, which is so important to 

West Virginia. We have amendments to address that. There are 

still many parts of this bill that need fixing, and I urge my colleagues to keep working to make this bill better. And I ask unanimous consent to place in the record letters from organizations that 

oppose final passage of the Vitter substitute unless we pass strong 

perfecting amendments. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced letters were not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Those would include Safer Chemicals, Healthy 

Families Coalition, which represents 450 environmental, labor, and 

health groups; the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization; the 

AFL–CIO; Environmental Working Group, the Breast Cancer 
29 

Fund, and the Center for Environmental Health. I really look forward to making this chemical safety bill better and better. But if 

we can’t support these perfecting amendments today, I intent to 

vote no on final passage. 

I thank you so much for all your work on this. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 
30 
31 
32 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

We will be dealing with quorums. We need 11 to report the legislation, when we get to that point, and 7 people here for the GSA 

Resolutions amendments I mentioned in my opening statement. 

To begin, we will call up the Vitter substitute, the Vitter-Udall 

substitute amendment. That will be the underlying bill, and I recognize Senator Vitter for an explanation. Over the weekend, they 

reached an agreement, as was called to our attention by myself and 

by Senator Boxer, on the substitute amendment, which I think is 

supported by a lot of people on this committee. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for convening today’s business meeting and for bringing up this new 

version of S. 697. This work reflects the ongoing strong bipartisan 

effort between Senator Udall and myself and involving so many 

others. This bill is a marked improvement over current law. It does 

represent significant positive compromise. It is the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, aptly named. 

Mr. Chairman, after this committee held our hearing on the legislation in March, Senator Udall and I took the concerns presented 

by many colleagues and stakeholders and set out to make the bill 

even stronger. That is what we have before us today. I am pleased 

to have worked, in particular, with Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, 

and Booker to produce this compromise. I welcome their input and 

their support. I also want to thank Senator Carper for his relentless work on this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly note some of the improvements 

in this bill. First, the amendment creates a compromise on one of, 

if not the most, controversial issue, and that is high priority preemption. Not only did the bill as originally introduced remove the 

preemptive effect of low priority decisions, but this amendment 

today goes farther to balance the need for maintaining business 

certainty while allowing States to play an important role in protecting public health and the environment. 

No. 2, Mr. Chairman, this bill allows for State co-enforcement of 

regulations that are consistent with current TSCA. No. 3, it requires that for the purposes of TSCA submissions to the EPA, industry look at available alternatives to animal testing. And No. 4, 

this bill provides clarification that State clean air and water laws 

are not preempted by the legislation, which was never our intent. 

Many of these changes reflect requests made by colleagues. This 

compromise represents real improvement that my side of the aisle 

will also appreciate, including allowing for a greater number of 

chemicals to move through the system at the request of the regulated community, clarifying some necessary protections of confidential business information and clarifying EPA’s process around articles. 

Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership, 

your work in getting us to this very significant day, marking up 

and passing out of committee a major improvement to current law. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 

by Senator Udall follows:] 
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 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 

Senator INHOFE. I applaud both you and Senator Udall for your 

hard work. It has been very time consuming. You have had a lot 

of staff keeping busy late at night. We are finally here. 

I am going to ask for members to seek recognition on each 

amendment that a member may want to call up. We have a long 

list of possible amendments. We have counsel at the witness table 

to answer questions concerning the legislation and amendments 

from committee members. At the conclusion of the members’ statements and questions, we will vote on each amendment until finally 

proceeding to the vote on the bill. 

Does any Senator seek recognition? Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and 

Ranking Member. I appreciate the tireless work of our colleagues 

on this bill to craft a bill that is worthy of Frank Lautenberg’s legacy and name. A special thanks to Senators Udall and Vitter for 

coming together with our colleagues, Senators Whitehouse, 

Merkley and Booker, to begin to strengthen this bill. I believe that 

everyone here shares the desire to fix our broken toxic substance 

control system and keep our families and children safe. 

A remaining issue that needs to be fixed about this bill, and my 

amendment that I would call up would address this directly, is the 

right of individual States to do what they believe is right for their 

citizens. As currently written, the bill would tie the hands of Governors and State legislators to develop their own safety standards, 

even when the EPA hasn’t yet decided whether a chemical is safe 

or not. Just thinking about that for a moment, States that are 

ready, willing and able to protect their families will be forced to sit 

on the sidelines and wait for EPA to study an issue. 

What is more important, the EPA can take years to do its full 

analysis. And while I do very much appreciate what my colleagues 

have done to shorten this to 5 years, I still believe that it is only 

right to allow my State to make its own regulations in the absence 

of a Federal decision. 

Therefore, my amendment very simply would preserve States’ 

rights. It would preserve the right of the individual State to act on 

the best interest of its people. It would let States make their own 

decisions about toxic substances while they wait for the EPA. 

In our 50 States, we have 50 different perspectives on what and 

when a chemical is considered dangerous and whether it should be 

curtailed. But I think we can all agree that no State should be prevented from acting in the best interest of its people. No State 

should be barred from banning a chemical it considers to be dangerous, simply because EPA is taking time to review the substance. 

My proposal is taken straight out of the House draft of the Toxic 

Substance Control Act, which was recommended by Chairman 

Shimkus. It would allow State law to be preempted only after the 

EPA has finished its studies and has determined that a chemical 

is unsafe. 

I want to give you just one example about why this is so important. The flame retardant TRIS is found in many child care products, like bedding and car seat padding. This chemical is classified 

by the Consumer Product Safety Commission as a probable human 

carcinogen. And young children can ingest it at dangerous levels, 

because they tend to put their hands in their mouths. 
213 

In 2011, New York was the first State to ban this chemical in 

children’s products. Since then, three other States have followed 

suit. But the EPA has yet to make its own determination on the 

chemical. 

If this bill was law in 2011, it would have prohibited any of the 

individual States from taking any action to limit manufacturing, 

processing, distribution or use of this carcinogen, because they 

would have had to wait for EPA to make its final assessment. 

Under this bill, States would be prohibited from doing anything to 

protect their citizens for 5 years while the EPA slowly studies the 

issue. 

I am all for the EPA being careful and thorough with its research. This country benefits greatly from their work. But I can’t 

support a bill that prohibits States from acting on their own to protect children from chemicals. I urge my colleagues to support this 

amendment to preserve the rights of individual States to make 

those decisions. 

[The text of the amendment offered by Senator Gillibrand follows:] 
214 
215 
216 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand, for clarification. 

This is Gillibrand No. 1 amendment that you are referring to. It 

appears to me that the amendment would be harmful to the bipartisan compromise, but I recognize Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am going to urge a no vote 

on this well intended amendment. This would alter the fundamental compromise in this bill. That compromise is to give EPA 

significant new authority, but also to say when they act and when 

they take up a chemical, we are going to have one rulebook and 

not 50 different rulebooks that industry has to follow. 

So this would alter that fundamental compromise. I think it 

could also create a rush for States to get to hasty decisions before 

a Federal decision and potentially do poor work. Now, EPA doesn’t 

have an unlimited amount of time in any of this. There is significant room for States to take action. But this would alter the important compromise in the bill. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

I appreciate the views of my colleague, Senator Vitter. But I 

don’t see how this amendment undermines a thing. As a matter of 

fact, Senators Whitehouse, Merkley and Booker made some slight 

improvements, in my view. They think more, but that is a disagreement, on preemption. So the fact is, your new substitute does in 

fact make changes on preemption. 

All Senator Gillibrand is saying is this. Let the States do what 

they do best, which is protect their people until the EPA has completed their work on a chemical. Otherwise, you have this horrific 

death zone in there. That means nobody can do anything about a 

chemical for a period of more than 5 years. And as she has said, 

she took her amendment directly from a Republican in the House, 

Chairman Shimkus, who said the States should be able to act. 

So frankly, I know this vote is going to be taken. But anyone who 

votes no, I would ask them, before they do it, to think about all the 

speeches they gave about States’ rights. This is a States’ rights 

matter. And I think when the States want to protect their folks, 

they should have a chance to do so. 

So I want to thank my colleague and hope that we will pass this. 

If we pass this, this has taken a giant step forward. 

Senator INHOFE. Do others wish to be heard? Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. I find it awkward to be speaking here in the 

position of being the most conservative member of this committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SANDERS. And I do not usually have very nice things to 

say about Republicans in the House. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SANDERS. But apparently this time, for whatever reason, 

they did the right thing and they were consistent with their ideology. 

We have a system of federalism, which actually is a very interesting and well thought out theory of government by our founders. 

And they say we have different States who do things differently. 

But if the State of Nevada or the State of Oklahoma does some-
217 

thing really good, other States learn from it. If a State does something bad, we learn from that. 

So the concept of telling States that they cannot go forward I 

think is not what conservatives should be supporting. What governments do closest to home is something that I believe makes a lot 

of sense. The State of Vermont has been a leader on these issues, 

and I want to see the State of Vermont continue to be a leader, 

that other States can learn from Vermont, and Vermont can learn 

from California and so forth and so on. So I think when we have 

the very conservative U.S. House of Representatives putting a position in there, as I understand it, what Senator Gillibrand has done, 

it is simply word for word, is that right, Senator? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Taken that language, I would hope that we 

could all support that proposition. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Others who want to be heard? Yes, Senator 

Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, the issue that I was most 

engaged with in these conversations was the question of preemption generally and specifically, the question of the so called death 

zone between the initial announcement of EPA interest in regulating and the ultimate EPA rule. Indeed, I coined the term death 

zone. 

As those who were in the negotiations will know, that was a really important issue to me. My belief is that the Vitter amendment 

gets rid of the death zone. I know that this was an agreement late 

reached, and colleagues are going to need to take some time to review it themselves. But my view of this is that the restriction on 

States in regulating during that period first has been narrowed, 

and second, it has been limited to the principles that exist first, if 

you look at the three exemptions, first, in the Commerce Clause of 

the United States Constitution. Second, in the Supremacy Clause 

of the United States Constitution. And third, in the Due Process 

Clause of the Constitution as it pertains to administrative agency 

action. 

So those are baselines that we are never going to go beyond. I 

think we reached a fair compromise. I intend to vote for Senator 

Gillibrand’s amendment because I think it moves us in the right 

direction. But I want to make sure people are clear that in the view 

of the person who coined the phrase death zone, the death zone is 

gone as a result of this. And the regulatory restrictions that remain 

are those that are consistent with the baseline principles of the 

United States Constitution in those three amendments, one, two 

and three in the list in the new statute. 

Senator INHOFE. Others who wish to be heard? Yes, sir, Senator 

Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will echo Senator 

Whitehouse’s comments. 

But I also support this amendment. Here is why. We have a compromise strategy in the bill. But it is much more complex than simply capturing the language from the House side. And I wanted to 

clarify that I would disagree with our chairman in terms of the 50 

different rulebooks. Because essentially, if one State acts on a 

chemical like fire retardants in our carpets that put poisonous, can-
218 

cer causing chemicals into our children when they are just babies 

crawling on the rug, it actually creates an incentive for the Federal 

Government to go ahead and act. We have seen a Federal Government that has been paralyzed over acting on these toxic chemicals. 

So when one State acts, it strengthens the incentive and puts everybody on the same wavelength, yes, let’s address this nationally, 

so we get that one common rulebook, rather than ending up with 

50 different ones. By the way, very few States have acted on very 

few chemicals over the last four decades. So we have had neither 

a really functioning Federal system or a functioning State system. 

But to the degree that they act, as Senator Gillibrand put out, 

they are addressing core health and safety issue. It works nicely 

in terms of incentivizing the Federal Government under this structure to be attentive and to be prompt in addressing substances of 

significant risk. That is why I will support the Gillibrand amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Are there others who wish to be heard? Senator 

Markey. 

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

Without question, tremendous progress has been made. But the 

Gillibrand amendment goes right to the heart of the role whish the 

States have played over these many years. Twelve States have 

acted to regulate BPA. Seven States have regulated cadmium. 

Thirty States have regulated mercury. Twelve States have regulated flame retardants. 

What Senator Gillibrand’s amendment does is to retain the authority—to ensure that the States are there as they have historically been. For example, in Massachusetts, the scientists from MIT 

and Harvard can help the State of Massachusetts to determine 

whether or not a particular chemical is something which is too dangerous to be on the market. And without question, and I think history makes this very clear, when the States act, it does tend to 

have the impact of changing the way in which the entire country 

has a relationship with one of the chemicals that are being dealt 

with. 

So I think that we should embrace the role that the State scientists have played over the years. I think it is a complementary 

but very important role. I think that the Gillibrand amendment 

acts to retain that role in its historic place. And I think it is very 

important for us to recognize that today in a vote on this amendment. 

I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Senator INHOFE. Do others want to be heard? 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. Senator 

Whitehouse, who coined the phrase, death zone, it is very reassuring to hear you say you think it is gone. I think that will be 

the subject of great debate as we move forward. I hope you are 

right. And I can’t tell you how much I hope you are right. 

The fact is, my attorney general says there are major problems 

with, he calls it premature preemption of State authority, combined 

with unworkable conditions for a waiver of this preemption. So I 

am going to ask unanimous consent to put into the record my attorney general’s view of the compromise. Again, I am very pleased 
219 

that it looks like, I think, all of us on our side, I am not sure, will 

vote for the Gillibrand amendment. I just am prayerful that we will 

get some help on the other side from the people who say they are 

for States’ rights. 

Senator INHOFE. Do others want to be heard? 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, three points. First of all, 

it is a very conservative principle, because it is in the Constitution 

that things that are fundamentally about interstate commerce can 

be governed at the Federal level. Again, that is straight from the 

Constitution. There is not much more than is innately interstate 

commerce, in fact, it is international commerce, than what we are 

talking about, which are in products made and distributed around 

the country and around the world. 

Second, because of this, a very similar approach was struck by 

Senator Feinstein in a bill regarding some cosmetic products reviewed by FDA, an extremely analogous approach in that bill. So 

this is used and adopted all the time. 

Third, with regard to comments about a House bill, that House 

bill is a much, much narrower measure, not a broad TSCA reform 

measure. So that is really comparing apples and orangutans. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

If there are no further statements or questions on the amendment, is there a motion to adopt the Gillibrand amendment? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So moved. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator BOXER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. All in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[Chorus of noes.] 

Senator BOXER. I ask for a recorded vote. 

Senator INHOFE. A recorded vote is in order. The Clerk will call 

the roll. 

The CLERK. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator CARPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Senator Gillibrand. 
220 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Senator Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Senator Sullivan. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. No. 

The CLERK. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 8, the nays are 12. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment has failed. 

Senator BOXER. Can I offer an amendment or do you want me 

to defer? Is it all right if I offer my amendment? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, of course. 

Senator BOXER. All right. I would call up Boxer-Sanders-Markey 

No. 1. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gillibrand be added 

as a co-sponsor. 

Senator INHOFE. First of all, let me clarify, the statement I 

should have made was that we were going to further amendments. 

So that particular amendment failed. You are recognized for what 

amendment? 

Senator BOXER. I ask to call up Boxer-Sanders-Markey No. 1 and 

ask unanimous consent that Senator Gillibrand be added as a cosponsor. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. Please proceed. 

Senator BOXER. This amendment is named after Alan Reinstein, 

who sadly lost his life to mesothelioma. His widow, Linda 

Reinstein, who is the co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness 

Organization, is here with us today. Linda, I would ask you to 

stand. 

Tragically, Linda should be celebrating her 30th wedding anniversary with her husband, Alan. But instead, she is clutching his 

burial flag. 

Asbestos kills 10,000 people a year. As Linda reminds us, ‘‘For 

every life lost from an asbestos-caused disease, a shattered family 

is left behind.’’ I have met her daughter, and I know that that is 

right. 

Our amendment would require expedited action on all forms of 

asbestos. EPA would have to complete a safety assessment and determination within 2 years and promulgate a final rule within 3 

years. The Vitter-Udall bill, as introduced, and the Vitter substitute amendment, does not even mention the word asbestos. And 
221 

experts say that regulation of asbestos under the Udall-Vitter bill 

will never happen. 

Asbestos, a lethal substance, is still legal in the U.S., even 

though it has been banned in most developed nations. There is absolutely no reason to delay action any further. This amendment 

will enable the EPA to once and for all ban asbestos. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. 

[The text of Boxer-Sanders-Markey Amendment No. 1 follows:] 
222 
223 
224 

Senator INHOFE. Others who wish to be heard? 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposing the amendment. 

The bill does not mention the word asbestos because the bill 

doesn’t mention any specific chemical or substance. That is not an 

appropriate regulatory framework to set out. We are not picking 

and choosing and pointing to specific substances. 

Second, the EPA has made perfectly clear that this bill gives 

them full authority and ability to take up asbestos, among other 

things, as a high priority chemical. So there is no debate that this 

bill would not give them full authority to do that. That is extremely 

clear, including directly from the EPA. 

Senator INHOFE. Others who wish to be heard? Senator Markey. 

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

Yes, Senator Boxer and I had a press conference in this room 

with Linda Reinstein about 6 weeks ago, talking about this issue. 

It is not just asbestos, it is more than that. But asbestos is the 

worst of the worse. EPA first tried to ban asbestos in 1989, more 

than 50 countries have already banned this substance because of 

the dangers to public health. The safety risks and hazards of asbestos are well known. 

Unfortunately, under this bill, despite having decades of information about the hazards of asbestos and the impacts to human 

health, the EPA is still required to go through a lengthy review 

process. In the meantime, Americans will be exposed for years to 

come from this asbestos danger. 

This amendment is important because it will direct the EPA to 

telescope the timeframe of its review and risk management, shaving off years of delay allowed for in this underlying bill that we are 

now considering. I think it is important to adopt this amendment 

at this time, and I urge my colleagues to do so. 

I thank you, Linda, and I thank all of those in the asbestos community for standing up and raising this issue. From 1989 to today 

is a quarter of a century. It is time for us to act. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Other Senators? Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I intend to support this 

amendment. I think it is a good amendment. But again, in the interest of clarity, I would like to point out what the recent compromise does in this area. That is to take chemicals like asbestos 

and others like formaldehyde, that have been heavily studied by 

Federal agencies and by our national institutes, and allow that 

work and those findings to be taken notice of and adopted by EPA. 

So it will accelerate the way in which EPA can address these 

chemicals that have received a lot of attention. 

So I just want to make that clear about the way in which we address the issue of asbestos and other well known harmful chemicals 

in the bill. I appreciate for my colleagues, that is not everything 

we would want. And again, I support this amendment. But I want 

to make clear that that is what was accomplished in the recent 

amendments. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 
225 

Other Senators? Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. I wanted to address just a couple of points that 

were raised. To Senator Vitter, I never heard of a situation where 

because no other chemical is mentioned you can’t mention a chemical. The reason you do bills is to take action that you want to take. 

If you wanted to take action on asbestos, and as Senator Markey 

said, this has been an issue since a quarter of a century ago, you 

put it in the bill. This is a free country. And you write a bill, and 

you take care of the things that are important. 

I also want to make a point that I do so appreciate what Senator 

Whitehouse has stated. But we have to be clear. In the underlying 

Vitter amendment, there is no deadline for implementation, even 

after a chemical is deemed unsafe. There are deadlines to get it to 

that point, but there is no timeline. That is why in our amendment, 

we say enough is enough when it comes to a chemical that is killing 10,000 people a year. Some of your constituents, some of my 

constituents. Just a tiny bit of that gets in the lung, and it is over. 

And if we can’t at least come together on this and remember, the 

whole TSCA was really based around—the TSCA case was based 

around the issue of asbestos. The bill wasn’t strong enough at that 

time. So we want to make this bill strong. This is an opportunity 

to add to the improvements that Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, 

and Booker made along with Senators Vitter and Udall. Let’s make 

this bill matter. 

And I want to say to the Asbestos Awareness Organization, you 

are my heroes. You are my heroes. Because you didn’t listen to oh, 

forget it, the bill has a great name, everything is fine. You read the 

bill, your lawyers looked at the bill, and we saw how weak it was. 

And we have strengthened it because of the work of my colleagues, 

Senators Udall and Vitter being willing, because of you and the 

people out there and the 450 groups. 

But let’s make this bill better, and let’s put asbestos in there. 

Yes, mention it. You mentioned PBTs, which you didn’t do before. 

Now, happily, you have put that in there. You mentioned, you 

changed it to mention PBTs. Change it to mention asbestos. I hope 

we will have a good vote on this, and I would ask that we have 

a recorded vote on this. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, dozens of 

countries around the world either restrict or ban asbestos. 

Senator BOXER. That is right. 

Senator SANDERS. The United States should not be behind dozens of other countries. So if we are dealing with a bill addressing 

toxic chemicals, clearly asbestos should be front and center. I 

strongly support this amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. Just very briefly, I support the 

amendment. I am grateful for the indefatigable persistence of Senator Boxer and her leadership as well as others of my colleagues. 

So I support the amendment. 

I do have to leave very soon. I have given my proxy votes over. 

I just want to thank, in general, Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe 

for supporting the negotiation process in which Senator 
226 

Whitehouse, Senator Merkley and myself have been pushing for 

and working with Senator Vitter and Senator Udall in improving 

this legislation. The gains that were made, as have been mentioned 

multiple times by Democrats and Republicans on this committee, 

have been significant and have taken it a long way. I support these 

amendments that we are going through now, because they can 

make it even better. 

But as a new Senator, the experience I have had in working in 

partnership and trying to improve something has been a very good 

one, and I am very encouraged by the process. Again, for the 

record, I want to say I support this amendment that is up right 

now. I am grateful for Senator Boxer’s continued efforts. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Others who wish to be heard? 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, may I put my statement, my full statement, into the record? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, your full statement will be in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Booker follows:] 
227 
228 
229 

Senator INHOFE. The Boxer Amendment No. 1 is before us. Is 

there a motion? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So moved. 

Senator INHOFE. Second? 

Senator BOXER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. And a roll call has been requested. The Clerk 

will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

Senator Boozman, would you like to be personally recorded? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be personally recorded as a no. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment has failed. 

Other amendments? Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Markey No. 1. 
230 

Senator INHOFE. Number 1, all right. Senator Markey, please 

proceed. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This is 

an alternative way of dealing with the asbestos issue without naming asbestos or any dangerous chemicals. Because there are some 

chemicals for which we already have decades of data. We already 

know that they leech out of furniture or plastic, how they get into 

people’s bodies, how they cause disease and even cause deaths. 

There are chemicals that have been studied by independent scientists at the National Institutes of Health, the National Academy 

of Sciences, or the World Health Organization and have been determined to cause cancer or have other serious, chronic health impacts. Some of these chemicals have even been banned by other 

countries. Yet under the bill, even those chemicals would be subject 

to further study by the EPA, causing even further delay in protecting the health of American citizens. 

A perfect example of such a chemical is asbestos. We have more 

than 50 years of data on asbestos, and the harms it causes to 

human health, including lung cancer and mesothelioma. More than 

50 countries have already banned asbestos. The International 

Agency for Research on Cancer has listed it in its highest and most 

dangerous cancer category. The EPA already attempted to ban asbestos but was challenged by industry, and the ban was struck 

down by the court. 

Under this bill, EPA would have to start at the beginning of a 

7-year process to issue a regulation protecting the American public 

from the dangers of asbestos. Although the manager’s amendment 

does encourage EPA to be more efficient by using work done by the 

National Academies of Sciences and other Federal agencies, it does 

not allow EPA to take immediate steps to protect the public. 

Under my amendment, chemicals which have already been 

deemed by EPA to be worthy of further assessment and have also 

been deemed as a carcinogen by either the National Institutes of 

Health or the National Academies of Science or the World Health 

Organization or have been banned by a foreign country would be 

eligible for fast regulation by the EPA. 

This discretionary authority would allow the EPA to step in and 

protect the public from the chemicals we already know are the 

worst of the worst without having to go through a lengthy re-review and assessment. Some of these chemicals have already been 

reviewed, over and over again. To add another 7 years, when we 

already know what the problem is, to tie the hands of the EPA, 

really in my opinion is unnecessary. It is why I have made my 

amendment, and I urge an aye vote from my colleagues. 

[The text of the amendment No. 1 offered by Senator Markey follows:] 
231 
232 
233 
234 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Others who want to be heard? 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. With 

all due respect, I think this is sort of the fire, ready, aim amendment. This bill gives EPA full authority to do its work as quickly 

as it can but to go through the proper procedure and safety assessments to do that, not to reach conclusions first. Now, if there is a 

body of evidence, as there may be in certain cases, EPA has full 

authority to take into account that research, that body of evidence. 

But this amendment goes way beyond that, and essentially has 

EPA acting before doing that proper work. 

Now, again, if EPA can reach conclusions more quickly in some 

cases because of that work that is existing, this underlying bill absolutely allows EPA to take that into account, but doesn’t let it 

reach a conclusion first and then look at the evidence. So I oppose 

this amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, thank you. 

I just want to say, the National Academy of Science, if you were 

to stop someone in the street and say, who do you believe more, 

Senators or the National Academy of Sciences when it comes to 

protecting the health of the people? We all know it would be 100 

to nothing if you asked 100 people. 

All Senator Markey is saying, and I just don’t understand the reluctance to accept this. It just shows me such a closed mind and 

where you really stand on this issue. This is simply saying that if 

the National Academy of Sciences has found that chemicals are 

particularly harmful and dangerous, why do we need to just reinvent the wheel and tell EPA, well, ignore all that, let’s just go? 

This is such a common sense, taxpayer saving amendment. And 

that is the point. I really hope we can just break the logjam here 

and at least accept this very simple amendment. 

I thank the Senator for it. 

Senator MARKEY. If the gentlelady would yield. 

Senator BOXER. I would yield. 

Senator MARKEY. I thank the Senator. And again, that is the 

point. 

Senator BOXER. Gentlelady. I haven’t heard that since I was in 

the House a thousand years ago. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. Why waste time and money when the most renowned scientific bodies in the world have already determined that 

something causes cancer? Already determined that something 

causes cancer. Why have another 7-year process? It is pretty common sense here and it will save money. Again, I yield back. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, and 85 percent of the budget of the National 

Academy of Sciences is paid for by, guess by whom? Your taxpaying 

public. So why not save funds, utilize the National Academy of 

Sciences on this? As I say, I can understand why you might object 

to some other amendment. But I do not get why you would object 

to this amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a motion? 

Senator BOXER. I do so move. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 
235 

Senator MARKEY. Second. I request a roll call vote, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. A roll call vote has been requested on Markey 

No. 1. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Cardin votes aye, and said he wanted to tell 

you, Mr. Chairman, he wanted to be here but he is managing with 

Senator Corker the bill on the floor. So we really miss him, but he 

has to be on the floor. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? 

The CLERK. You are not. 

Senator CARPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 8, the nays are 12. 

Senator INHOFE. The Markey Amendment No. 1 fails. 

Other amendments? 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey. 
236 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Markey Amendment No. 2, please. 

Senator INHOFE. Markey Amendment No. 2. Proceed. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This bill sets up a trial process to determine a chemical safety 

with the EPA serving as the judge and the jury. But this is no ordinary trial, because the chemical that is the perpetrator is not in 

custody and protected from harming the public while the trial is 

being conducted and the verdict is being deliberated. Bail is always 

granted, each and every time, to that chemical. 

Under this bill, the EPA has 1 year to come up with a screening 

process they will use to determine if a chemical is high priority. 

This is analogous to giving an entire year to determine who will 

serve on the grand jury. Once the grand jury is assembled, it has 

6 months to determine if there is enough evidence to suggest a 

chemical is dangerous enough to public health to be indicted and 

listed as a high priority. And only then, after 18 months, can the 

actual trial begin. 

But this is not a normal trial, because under this bill, it could 

take anywhere from 3 to 5 years before the jury is required to 

make a decision. We are now as long as 6 and a half years, at this 

point, into a process. And the perpetrating chemical is still allowed 

to roam in our homes and on our store shelves, unfettered. If the 

jury decides that the chemical is indeed guilty of being unsafe, the 

judge then begins the sentencing process and will have 2 years 

under this bill to determine what types of restrictions should be 

placed on the chemical. In some cases, the judge may determine 

the chemical should be locked up for life, and in others the judge 

may decide it is enough to make the chemical register as a labeled 

offender. 

But what is alarming is that even after 8 and a half years of 

trial, the bill has no deadlines when the sentence actually starts. 

The judge may sentence this chemical to life in prison, but it may 

decide that sentence doesn’t even have to start for another 20 

years. 

All this time, all the way until the final sentence is started, all 

the rules implemented, the public’s health remains in danger, and 

not even the States, not even the States can step in to act. 

My amendment simply requires that a time limit be placed on 

when an implementation or sentencing would begin. Under my 

amendment, after the final regulation is issued by the EPA, industry will have a minimum of 3 years to comply with the ability to 

extend for an additional 2 years if there is some technological reason that prevents earlier compliance. 

This would bring TSCA in line with other environmental statutes, like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, which also 

contain statutory deadlines for regulation, implementation or compliance. I urge my colleagues to support this simple, straightforward and incredibly important amendment. It says yes, this 

chemical has a right to due process, but it does not allow it to be 

open-ended. There have to be some deadlines, there have to be 

some limits. That I think is what is missing from this bill at this 

time. I urge an aye vote from my colleagues. 

[The text of the amendment No. 2 offered by Senator Markey follows:] 
237 
238 
239 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Are there others who wish to be heard? 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The 

bill already has clear language that phase-outs, for instance, of 

chemical substances shall be implemented in ‘‘as short a period as 

practicable’’ and dates by which compliance is mandatory ‘‘shall be 

as soon as practicable.’’ EPA wants the flexibility to deal with a lot 

of different situations that will be posed, thousands of different situations and different degrees of implementation. So this gives that 

to them but certainly mandates that they get about that as quickly 

as possible. 

Senator INHOFE. Other Senators? 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. If I could thank Ed for this, and also, Senator 

Markey, your, as Senator Carper said, extremely interesting way 

of explaining the criminal chemical at stake. Let’s just be clear. 

When all the dust settles and everyone has a chance to read this 

bill, without this amendment, there are no deadlines to act on a 

chemical that is dangerous. You heard it, 20 years, maybe that is 

good enough for some of your grandkids, but it ain’t good enough 

for mine. This is outrageous. This compromise, which moves forward in four or five areas, has not moved forward on deadlines for 

action. 

So you don’t have to be all that cynical to understand that with 

all the pages and with all the descriptions, nothing really has to 

happen at any time in the universe. And that is why we offered action on asbestos in a certain timeframe. 

And by the way, I got a note from one of the groups sitting out 

there, very interesting, that PCBs were the only chemicals mentioned in the last TSCA, which was so unsuccessful. But that was 

the only example of where there was protective action. So this idea 

that you can’t mention a chemical and you shouldn’t have deadlines, that is coming, in my opinion, straight from the hearts and 

minds of chemical companies. Of course they don’t want it. They 

don’t want to have to act. So they come to the table and they agree 

to something, and at the end of the day, there is no deadline for 

them to have to act. So what is the use of it? 

And I think the fact that Republicans have so far in group voted 

against every single perfecting amendment says reams about this 

bill. I hope that we can pass this. Because it is a 3-year deadline 

for the manufacturer to comply. And the deadline could be extended for 2 years. 

If you said to somebody in the street, again, there is a dangerous 

chemical, when do you think it ought to be taken out of your products? You know what they would say? Yesterday. Take it out of my 

products. And it gives them 5 years, and that is not good enough 

for Senator Vitter. Again, I am perplexed at the fact that we are 

not taking some of these perfecting amendments. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a motion? Oh, Senator Sanders. 
240 

Senator SANDERS. Just a word. I am so delighted to hear the 

great confidence that my Republican colleagues now have in the 

EPA. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SANDERS. It is really nice to hear all these converts. I 

remember when Gina McCarthy was up here, we didn’t quite hear 

those words. And we don’t hear them in the budget, where the goal 

of many Republicans is to decimate the funding of the EPA. So I 

hope that you will remember what you are saying today and the 

great confidence you have in that agency, they will be well funded, 

and you will treat the administrators with respect. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a motion? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, I move the Markey amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator MARKEY. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. The vote is on the Markey Amendment 2. All 

those in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

Senator BOXER. Recorded vote. 

Senator INHOFE. Recorded vote is requested. The Clerk will call 

the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 
241 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. And the amendment fails. 

Other amendments? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. First of all, let me thank Senator Boxer, because she had a long list of amendments, and she has agreed to 

just pare them down to three. That is very respectful of everyone’s 

time. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. And should this get to the floor, you 

will hear all of them. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I am so fond of you, Mr. Chairman, I just didn’t 

want to ruin your morning completely. 

So I have Boxer-Carper Amendment No. 3, please. 

Senator INHOFE. You are recognized. 

Senator BOXER. This amendment will protect contamination of 

drinking water supplies from chemical spills, such as the Freedom 

Industry spill in West Virginia. This amendment requires consideration of whether a chemical substance is stored near drinking 

water sources when prioritizing chemicals for assessments. 

Communities need to know that the chemicals stored near 

streams and rivers supplying their drinking water have been assessed and that the potential for a spill is taken into account. And 

if, God forbid, a spill happens, they know what chemical it is, and 

they know what steps to take. I remember the West Virginia spill, 

going through with my colleagues from West Virginia, the most 

frightening part was at first no one knew what was in there. So 

we need to know what is stored near drinking water supplies. 

The people of Charleston, West Virginia, found out the hard way 

that the chemical that was spilled from the Freedom Industries facility had not been assessed. No one knew what effect the chemical 

would have on human health from using their water for drinking, 

cooking or bathing. It is just simple, common sense that EPA 

should place a priority on assessing those chemicals that pose a 

risk to our drinking water. I urge my colleagues to support this 

amendment. 

[The text of the Boxer-Carper Amendment No. 3 follows:] 
242 
243 

Senator INHOFE. Others wanting to be heard? 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying that 

where we stand on a particular issue depends on where we sit. I 

sit here with all of you in the Senate, I spend a lot of time in Delaware. But when I was a kid, I started my life in West Virginia. 

Never lived in Charleston, I was from Beckley. Lived there about 

6 years until we moved on to Virginia. 

This is an issue that is important to me on a personal level and 

to my family, I have a lot of family still living, as Senator Capito 

knows, a lot of family still living in West Virginia. This is an issue 

that is very much on their minds. They would want me to join Senator Boxer not only in supporting this amendment, but in co-sponsoring it. And I am pleased to do so. 

I am going to take this moment, I may not have the time later 

on, just to say how grateful I am to you, Mr. Chairman, to you, 

Senator Vitter, to Senator Udall, to Senator Merkley, to Senator 

Whitehouse, to Senator Booker, Senator Boxer and all who have 

worked to make this bill better. We started off with legislation offered by Senator Lautenberg, whom we all revere. And I will be 

honest with you, as much as I loved Frank, it wasn’t the best bill 

that he ever introduced. The collective efforts of a lot of people on 

both sides of the bill have taken this legislation so much farther 

down the road where it needs to go. 

The people came to me, Mr. Chairman, after the election of last 

November 1, people want us to work together, they want us to get 

things done, they want us to find ways to strengthen the economic 

recovery. This legislation provides certainty and predictability for 

the chemical industry, which they want, and which they need. But 

at the same time, it speaks to the need for protecting our public 

health and protecting our environment in ways that the original 

legislation did not do. So I just want to thank each of you for that 

terrific bipartisan effort to get us to a much better place. 

I want to thank Collin Peppard, a member of my staff who has 

worked so hard with Democrat and Republican staff in this regard. 

I would thank the staff members of both sides that have worked 

tirelessly for days, weeks, months now, years to get us to a better 

place. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. Section 4(a) of the underlying bill already addresses the hazard and 

exposure potential of the chemical substances being directly taken 

into account. EPA can absolutely and should and will take into account that sort of factor. So that is already in section 4(a) of the 

bill. So I oppose the amendment. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say, the reason we are defeating 

these amendments is not because we are not open-minded, it is because we are and have been open-minded, have been working with 

all folks who have come to the table for a serious work effort for 

months and months and months. All sorts of changes have been 

happily taken and incorporated into the bill. Senator Boxer was not 
244 

an active part of that process; that is her right. But that is what 

has been going on for months. 

So now we face a choice, to adopt a lot of things that are going 

to disrupt the balance of the bill, in which case we will have the 

status quo, the present TSCA, unreformed, unimproved for the 

foreseeable future. Or to move forward with the first major bipartisan piece of environmental legislation in years. I strongly urge us 

to do the latter. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. I want to respond to this, my colleague said I 

wasn’t part of the process. Well, maybe I wasn’t in secret negotiations, that is true. But I was part of the process, because I was 

being briefed on what was happening. And working with everyone 

to get to the place we got. 

I had several press conferences, because I knew that you were 

working to try and move this bill forward, and you did. So it 

doesn’t mean because a lot of us weren’t in that room, and I had 

asked my colleagues to go and negotiate, because I think someone 

who is a good chairman or a good ranking member knows the personalities, knows how it can get done. This is what you do. 

And maybe Senator Inhofe wasn’t in that room, but I know he 

trusted you, David, to do what you did. And I trusted my colleagues. And they checked in with me. And when it was going 

down a bad path, David, I told them it was going down a bad path. 

So here is where we stand. Not all genius resides in a quiet room 

in the Capitol. That is the point of this. And what I see here is a 

complete disinterest, because people weren’t in that room, in that 

secret room, a disinterest in working together on the Republican 

side. Now, maybe it will change, maybe we will get a couple of Republican votes on some of these amendments. But I just don’t understand that kind of a process. 

And I don’t think the people out there want that kind of a process. They want bills to continue to be improved. When they get out 

of a secret room and a back room which sometimes is necessary to 

move something forward, they want to see us continue to work. 

They don’t want to see it shut down and have all Republicans vote 

no, every single time. It doesn’t give a good feeling that this is on 

the level. 

So you are right, I wasn’t in the room. But I was very much a 

part of what was happening. And it is not just me, it is a lot of 

other members here who I also talked to who weren’t in the room, 

if I might say. And they all were involved in this. So the bill is better in three or four areas, much better. And we can make this bill 

a bill we can be proud of. 

I believe if these amendments had passed this would be on the 

way to being one heck of a bill. But we couldn’t get Republicans 

to support what I think are very, very reasonable, reasonable 

amendments. Now, we got the substitute yesterday. OK, let’s be 

clear. And we have put all of our energy into analyzing the substitute, because we knew the parameters, but we hadn’t seen the 

language. And we will continue to critique the language, to embrace the language where we feel it is good. 
245 

But this is a moving process. And just to say that you will never 

pass an amendment just because there was an agreement in a private room, that is not the kind of legislation that I think is right. 

You need to constantly improve. And I am hopeful now, maybe, 

maybe, maybe, we can get support for the Boxer-Carper legislation 

to say, and that is what is pending here, that we ought to make 

a priority, make it a priority to know what chemicals are stored 

near drinking water supplies. And if you vote no on this, I would 

say you need to answer to your constituents who say, Senator, why 

wouldn’t you want to know what chemical is stored near my drinking water supply? Because we saw it happen in West Virginia. It 

was so upsetting because people didn’t know what was in there. 

And the company that was storing, they then went out of business. 

It was a nightmare, they went bankrupt. It was very, very chaotic. 

This is simple. Just simple. And I beg you to think about it. All 

we are saying is to the EPA, make it a priority if a chemical is 

stored near a drinking water supply that you know what the chemical is and what to do if, God forbid, there is a spill. And I urge 

an aye vote, and I would move that amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator CARPER. Second. 

Senator BOXER. I would like a roll call. 

Senator INHOFE. A roll call has been requested. The Clerk will 

call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 
246 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10, the nays are 10. 

Senator INHOFE. The Boxer Amendment No. 3 failed to get a majority. It has failed. 

Other amendments? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I call up Boxer Amendment No. 

5. It is Boxer-Markey-Sanders Amendment No. 5. 

Senator INHOFE. You are recognized. 

Senator BOXER. This amendment is identical to legislation I previously introduced with Senator Crapo, who is also a co-sponsor of 

this amendment, to help communities determine whether there is 

a connection between clusters of cancer, birth defects and other diseases and contaminants in the surrounding environment. When the 

same disease impacts a family, neighborhood or community, people 

have a right to know if there is a common factor related to this 

cancer. This legislation will help our communities investigate and 

address devastating disease clusters as quickly as possible. 

Here is what the amendment does. It will strengthen Federal 

agency coordination and accountability when investigating potential disease clusters. It will increase assistance to areas impacted 

by potential disease clusters. It will authorized Federal agencies to 

form partnerships with States and academic institutions to investigate and help address disease clusters. 

And I want to add that it doesn’t even occur unless a local community asks for this assistance. So if you believe in local government, and I started out as a county supervisor, and if you believe 

that local government should protect its people and they find that 

there is a cancer cluster in a local county or city, they just don’t 

have the resources. This amendment would allow them to call on 

the Federal Government to help them assess why this cancer cluster is occurring. 

Again, when you see kids with cancer, you ought to think that 

they got it for a reason. Senator Crapo knows what that is like. He 

has worked with the young people in Idaho on this. And these disease clusters should get the help and attention they deserve. I hope 

we can do this now. If not, there is going to be a long debate on 

the floor about kids with cancer and why on earth this committee 

didn’t do the right thing. So I am hoping maybe on this one we will 

pass this amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Other Senators? 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Vitter. 
247 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. This 

is, of all the ones we have discussed today, this is probably the 

most significant in terms of altering the bill, because it adds two 

entirely new titles to the bill, which are presently completely outside the scope of EPA’s authority. EPA, through TSCA, addresses 

chemical risk assessment and management. It was never intended 

to address public health disease investigation and response. We do 

have agencies that do that. That is the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, the CDC, and an agency within the CDC, its Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. That is what those 

specific Federal agencies are all about. 

This amendment would duplicate that work and would be a 

major power grab by EPA and a major change to put into their jurisdiction something which is completely outside their scope, and 

they have no proven expertise in terms of public health. So this is 

a big, big change to all sorts of present law, which I would oppose. 

Senator INHOFE. Other Senators? Senator Markey. 

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

First, I would like to thank Senators Merkley and Whitehouse 

and Booker. But to thank Senator Udall, working through Senator 

Vitter, on two provisions which are now in this underlying draft, 

which I very much was advocating to be included. I am very gratified that they are. 

The first is that the States have a new workable way to request 

permission from the EPA to protect their citizens from particular 

chemicals before EPA has finished studying them. I particularly 

appreciate the efforts to include that language, which I thought 

would make it easier for States to get their requests approved. 

I am also very gratified that my request to change or remove the 

so called unreasonable risk language in TSCA that was used by industry to argue that EPA hasn’t properly considered the cost to industry when it sued to overturn EPA’s asbestos ban was also included. So in both of those instances, I thank all the members for 

their help in getting that language into the bill that we are now 

debating. I think that is very helpful progress, and I thank Senators Udall and Vitter for their openness on having that included 

and the other Senators I mentioned for their help as well. 

On the amendment which the Senator from California is making, 

back in Woburn, Massachusetts, in the late 1970s, there was a 

mother, Ann Anderson, who had a little boy, Jimmy, who had contracted leukemia, cancer. And she found, just by accident initially 

and then by her own work, other young children in that same 

neighborhood who also had cancer, leukemia. It was her work and 

then ultimately work which was brought to the attention of the 

EPA and the Federal Government that led to the book, A Civil Action, which helped to highlight the problems that existed with 

these cancer clusters that were being identified across the United 

States. And it was very helpful in ensuring that there was a 

strengthened Superfund law, which would be able to ensure that 

there was quicker attention which was paid to these sites as they 

were identified across the country. 

What Senator Boxer’s amendment does is to say that these disease clusters must be more quickly identified and investigated so 

that they are dealt with. They pose really serious issues that clear-
248 

ly could help families, ordinary families across the country in a 

much more expedited fashion. I think this is a very important 

amendment to be adopted. I thank the Senator for making it, and 

I urge an aye vote. 

Senator INHOFE. Other Senators? 

Senator SANDERS. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Epidemiology is 

one of the most important tools that science has. It tells us why 

people in a certain part of the country or people who do certain 

types of work come down with certain types of illness. And it is a 

remarkable tool. I think we should do everything that we can to 

encourage science based on the evidence that takes place in looking 

at clusters. And I hope very much that we could pass this amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Sometimes when you think about a disease cluster, you may be 

thinking about issues of vaccinations or lack thereof, or a whole series of issues related to viruses or bacterial infections and so forth. 

But in this case, this amendment is targeted at something that is 

very relevant to EPA, and that is cancers and the possibility that 

that cancer cluster is being caused by some toxic substance. 

And in that sense, establishing a couple of response teams that 

would go out and look at a cancer cluster and try to determine if 

there is a toxic source is a sort of rapid response that makes a tremendous amount of sense. If they discover that there is toxic contamination driving this, then it will lead to measures that will protect many citizens from being the next victims of that toxic substance, the next victims of that cancer. So bringing the toxic chemical expertise of the EPA to bear is just the right type of partnership embedded in this amendment. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Other Senators? Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, one more plea to my colleagues 

on this. I think most of us know who Erin Brockovich is. She has 

stood by my side and by the side of Senators Markey, Whitehouse 

and others and various press conferences to point out the fact that 

these cancer clusters are occurring more and more across our Nation, particularly among children. And local communities, whether 

they are in Idaho or in California or West Virginia or Massachusetts or Oregon or wherever they may be, people are desperate to 

seek answers. 

Our bill doesn’t add one penny, our amendment doesn’t add one 

penny. We are using existing resources. Now, the last, my memory 

tells me, and my staff says my memory is correct, we voted this bill 

out of this committee without a problem. And the argument I hear 

from Senator Vitter is, this might add a new title to the bill. Who 

cares? You are writing a bill so you add another title to it if you 

make the bill better, and you make the bill stronger, who cares? 

This is a once in a lifetime thing. We are rewriting the toxic laws. 

If we can add a section that addresses asbestos that is killing 

people, 10,000 a year, if we can add a section that says, without 

any further costs, we can look at these cancer clusters, if we can 

add a section that says, we need deadlines to act on dangerous 

chemicals, and if we can add a section that says the States should 
249 

have the ability to act, we are improving a bill that many still oppose. Many still oppose. And I will read that list when we get to 

final passage. 

We still have huge opposition to this bill. We have tried in good 

faith, both in the negotiating room with the door closed and now 

out front so everyone can see how we can make this bill better. 

This is the simplest thing. It has been voted out of this committee 

before without a dissenting vote. As far as I know, there is literally, even among the chemical association, very little objection to 

this that I have ever heard. 

Why don’t we help local communities deal with cancer clusters? 

And so this is an opportunity to add that to this bill. And I hope 

we will say yes to that. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I agree with Senator Sanders in the sense 

that epidemiology really is a remarkable tool. I also agree with 

Senator Boxer in the sense that this is a discussion that needs to 

be had. 

I guess my problem with the amendment is that we have an 

agency, the CDC, that that is really what they do. And within the 

agency, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 

again, that is what they do. So the EPA is struggling to do the mission that they have. Again, I am going to vote against it. I am quite 

willing to have the discussion and see what we need to do. 

But logically, the place that this needs to go is within the CDC. 

That is what these individuals are trained for. And then also, 

beefing up the registry, doing whatever we need to do, again, in 

this regard. Thanks. 

Senator BOXER. May I respond to Senator Boozman? First, of all, 

thank you for your kind words about the intent of this amendment. 

And I really want to work with you on this. The bottom part of it, 

the bottom line is, this is a team effort to respond to cancer clusters. It includes the CDC. They are in the group. But they want 

more support. So hopefully, Senator, you and I can work on this 

and perfect it, so you feel comfortable. 

To me, if CDC is part of the leading part of the team, I don’t 

really—it doesn’t bother me who is the lead. What is important is 

taxpayers spend a lot of money on the CDC, on the chemical agencies we have, on EPA, on all of these organizations, National Academy of Sciences. Why not have them together come into Arkansas 

or into California or into West Virginia or Idaho or Louisiana when 

there is a problem? So I hope that that, my friend’s comments, 

would be an open invitation to maybe work together as we get this 

down on the floor. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I would be glad to work on it. Again, the essence is, though, that the CDC needs to be the primary whatever. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we don’t have a problem with that. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I am again concerned, right now, we have finite dollars. It does make a difference in the sense that the EPA 

is working hard to do the mission that they currently have. So I 

think you dilute things, and it probably needs to—— 

Senator BOXER. This doesn’t add one dollar, so don’t make like 

it does. This is taking the existing expertise in all the agencies to 
250 

help. If you think CDC has the ability alone to send their teams 

out to 100 places in the country, you are mistaken. They don’t. And 

this would say, and I think it is very fiscally sound, all the agencies 

that have a piece of this work together. 

So you can vote no and explain it however you want. But we are 

not adding one dime. We are just saying, let the taxpayer funds be 

used wisely. And when there is a cluster of children’s cancer, and 

children are dying, send a team out there. Send a team out there. 

You want to argue, oh, it should be this person who is the head 

of it, OK. I will have that argument, I don’t care. 

But there is so much bureaucratic stuff coming out here as to 

why we can’t do what we are supposed to do to protect the health 

and safety of the American people, which to me is our fundamental 

responsibility. Our fundamental responsibility is to them. It is not 

to the chemical companies, and it is not to special interests. It is 

to the people of the United States of America. And some of them 

are suffering mightily. And if we had the ability to help them, so 

you add another little one page to your bill which you actually now 

have a brand new bill, you threw out the other one, thank God. So 

you have a new bill. Add another section to it. Let’s protect the 

people. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman, three comments in closing. First 

of all, just to correct the record, this proposal has always in the 

past had strong Republican opposition. No. 2, I would be happy to 

partner and look at improvements that may be necessary to make 

it the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its Agency 

for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, if they don’t have some 

authority they need, I will be eager to look at that in conjunction 

with anyone. 

No. 3, Senator Boxer and others have been arguing that EPA 

isn’t going to act quickly enough in terms of the meat of this bill, 

and yet she wants to add a whole new area of endeavor, a brand 

new area of endeavor for EPA, which is epidemiology that they 

don’t have expertise in. I do think this would set us back in terms 

of their focus, which is chemical risk assessment and management. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am opposing the amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to put into the record an article, Is There a 

Cancer Cluster in West Salem? 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced article follows:] 
251 
252 
253 
254 

Senator MERKLEY. And if I might just comment on it, this is a 

case where there was a rare bone cancer with multiple folk being 

affected in a very small area. And indeed, the EPA went out and 

investigated. Now, so this is not something the EPA, what these 

cancers, when there is a cluster, there is suspicion that a toxin is 

involved, this has been a key role. This is not the role of the CDC, 

this is the role of the EPA. And they held hearings, they held investigations. 

But to create these response teams with the expertise to respond 

in not such an ad hoc fashion would greatly increase the efficiency 

and coordination between the EPA and the CDC and the ability to 

have a team that is oriented to look at how this is developing in 

difference places across the country and take the lessons learned 

from one place to another. It is simply a smart, more efficient way 

of doing what EPA is already involved in. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, when I was first elected to 

Congress in the 1990s, I worked very hard and successfully to establish what is called a cancer registry, and that is to give the CDC 

the tools that it needs to try to figure out why certain types of illnesses in West Virginia or in Wyoming are different than in 

Vermont and what did we learn from all of that. 

We know today, for example, breast cancer rates are different in 

the United States than they are in Japan. Why? What did we learn 

from that? We know that farmers, farmers who deal with a whole 

lot of fertilizer and chemicals, have high rates of certain types of 

cancer. We know that workers who are employed in certain types 

of factories, working with certain types of products, get higher 

rates of cancer. Why is that? 

We can learn an enormous amount. We learned from over in 

Massachusetts that certain types of chemicals put into drinking 

water caused disastrous results. So this is an area fertile for enormous scientific gains. I think we should encourage the EPA to be 

involved in this area. So I very strongly support this amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I will be honest with you, this 

is one I am torn on. And I think Senator Boxer is onto something 

here. I think the concerns pointed by Senator Vitter are not without substance. There is a role here for EPA, I think maybe for 

OSHA too. I am inclined to say that the Centers for Disease Control, maybe the Department of Health and Human Services should 

lead on this. But there is a role for EPA. 

Every now and then, on some of the other committees I serve on, 

someone will offer an amendment, and we know there is genuine 

interest, maybe bipartisan interest in trying to work and get something done on that. I don’t know that this amendment is going to 

pass today, but I sure believe that when we report this bill out of 

committee, and I hope we will today, either with or without this 

amendment, if we do it without, my hope is we will come back and 

see if we can’t find some way to come together on this issue. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. Is there a motion? 

Senator BOXER. So moved. 
255 

Senator INHOFE. Second? 

Senator SANDERS. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. The vote is on the Boxer Amendment No. 5. 

Senator BOXER. Recorded vote. 

Senator INHOFE. Recorded vote is requested. The Clerk will call 

the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Boozman would like to be recorded as no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10, the nays are 10. 

Senator INHOFE. Having failed to receive a majority, the amendment is not agreed to. 

Other amendments? 

OK. I was going to advise that we are going to stay with our 

agenda here until it is finished. There won’t be any breaks. 
256 

Seeing no further members wishing to seek recognition or offer 

amendments, I move to accept Substitute Amendment to S. 697. Is 

there a second? 

Senator VITTER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

Senator BOXER. Wait one moment. Is this the final passage vote? 

Senator INHOFE. This is the final passage of 697. 

[The amendment summary and text of the amendment to S. 697 

offered by Senators Boxer, Markey, and Sanders follow:] 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 

Senator BOXER. I have a statement to make before I vote, if you 

don’t mind. 

Senator INHOFE. That will be fine, if you want to be recognized 

for a statement, you can be recognized. 

Senator BOXER. I surely do, after all that. 

Let me say, Senators, the fact of the matter is that the original 

bill that we had hearings on is gone, it is away, it is dead and gone. 

I am very appreciative of that. The bill that is before us in the form 

of a Vitter substitute was subjected to a lot of negotiations. And I 

thank my colleagues who were in on those for making it better. 

I particularly thank the groups out there, the public health organizations, who were so strong that it forced the negotiations into 

a much better place than a lot of us thought they would go. 

Having said that, I will be specific again about what is so much 

better about this bill. There is no more preemption of State air and 

water laws. There is co-enforcement, that has been fixed. And a 

harmful provision that would have stopped the importation of dangerous chemicals, that has been fixed. These are fixes. 

The preemption question is still not fixed. We had a chance to 

vote on the Shimkus preemption which would have stopped the 

Federal Government from preempting the State until the EPA actually banned a chemical, and it was voted down by the Republicans. Let’s be clear; Republicans voted almost unanimously 

against anything with one or two exceptions. 

And so there is no secret than when and if this bill comes to the 

floor or in a conference or wherever it goes from here, it will face 

a tremendous number of amendments. I have 27; I only offered 3. 

And I will be bringing those out. And I will stand on my feet until 

I can’t stand on my feet anymore, because I refuse to bend in the 

face of serious problems in a bill that is said to fix a broken law. 

Now, I ask unanimous consent to place into the record letters 

and statements from organizations that oppose this Vitter substitute. They include: Safer Chemicals; Healthy Families Coalition, 

which represents 450 environmental, labor and public health 

groups; the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization; the AFL– 

CIO; the Environmental Working Group; the Breast Cancer Fund; 

the Center for Environmental Health. So if anybody thinks this 

fight is over, it is just beginning. Because once we bring this to the 

floor, we will have a number of us and others not on this committee 

who are going to file perfecting amendments. 

But I do say, again, to everybody, we got rid of a horrible bill. 

It is gone. We have a bill that makes progress. And we will continue to work on it until it really protects the people who are hurting, who are losing family members, 10,000 a year, who are losing 

children with bone cancer and everything else. 

You know, one time in my career, people said, Barbara Boxer, 

you are just too emotional. And you know what I said to them? You 

know what I said to them? If you don’t feel emotional when faced 

with a widow, there is something wrong with you. I urge a no vote. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me concur with Senator Boxer and thank 

her very much for something that she obviously feels correctly very, 

very strongly about. 
289 

Bottom line is that what we are voting on now is a much better 

bill than what we started with, and I applaud all those on both 

sides of the aisle who have made it a much better bill. But when 

you are dealing with an issue of toxins killing our children and 

causing massive health issues in our country, we have to go further 

than that. We have to have the courage to stand up to the chemical 

industry and do right by our people. 

So we have made progress. We still have a long way to go. And 

I look forward to working with Senator Boxer and others as we get 

to the floor. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend 

Senator Boxer for her emotion and say that I think we all share 

it. We don’t show it the same way, perhaps, but we share it. We 

are focused on those situations. That is why I am going to be voting 

yes to do what is long overdue to come together and actually pass 

a strong, necessary updating of TSCA, one that will empower the 

EPA to protect public health and safety and also keep America as 

an innovation leader in ways that further and enhance all of our 

lives. 

I want to thank everybody involved in this process, including 

Senator Udall on the Democratic side who has been a great lead 

and all of his colleagues on the Democratic side, including the three 

who have just joined us yesterday. I very much look forward to 

going to the floor and getting this done. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 
290 
291 
292 

Senator INHOFE. There is a motion and a second to accept the 

substitute amendment and report it favorably to the floor. The 

Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 15, the nays are 5. 

Senator INHOFE. The legislation is reported favorably to the Senate. 

Let me make one comment. I haven’t made many comments. But 

I think we are witnessing now why sometimes things don’t get 

done. There is not a person in this room who doesn’t think that the 

old 40-year-old legislation needs to be changed. We have been 

working on this bill for 2 years. Senator Lautenberg was working 

on it for about 10 years before that. Everyone agreed it should be 

done, but it wasn’t because it is complicated. You can always find 

objections to anything that is complicated. 
293 

So I am thankful that that is behind us, and we will now proceed 

to consideration of S. 544 and recognize the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that S. 544, the Secret Science Reform Act, has been 

placed on this markup. As you know, the House Science Committee 

has held extensive hearings on the House version of this bill. The 

bill has passed on the House floor with bipartisan support. I am 

pleased that we are now considering this legislation here today. 

I also want to thank the members of this committee who are 

original co-sponsors of the bill, namely, Senator Vitter, yourself, 

Mr. Chairman, as well as Senator Crapo and Senator Fischer. 

What this bill is trying to accomplish is to ensure that we strengthen the scientific information the EPA uses to make regulations, 

guidance and assessments. The EPA has a long history of relying 

on science that was not created by the agency itself. This often 

means that the science is not available to the public and therefore 

cannot be reproduced and verified. 

As a doctor, I know that the better data and research is the kind 

that is transparent, publicly available and reproducible. This legislation accomplishes all of these points, and it gives the EPA the 

gold standard set by modern scientific journals and even by the 

Obama administration’s stated policy. In fact, Dr. John Holdren, 

the President’s own science advisor, stated in June 2012 that ‘‘Absolutely, the data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions 

are based should be made public. Once enacted, the EPA will benefit from a better process to strengthen the research and data that 

is the basis of their regulations, their guidance and their assessments. By improving their scientific process, the EPA will enhance 

the confidence that the public and policymakers will have in the 

agency. The agency’s policies must provide the environmental and 

public health benefits that the EPA has promised.’’ 

Under this legislation, the EPA can propose, finalize or disseminate regulations, guidance or assessments based only upon science 

that is transparent, publicly available and reproducible. 

Critics have claimed that the bill would allow for personal and 

confidential health information to be released to the public. This 

bill ensures that there will be no public dissemination of information that is prohibited by law, such as personal health information. 

As a matter of fact, the Congressional Research Service stated in 

March of this year that ‘‘Certain statutes, such as the Freedom of 

Information Act and the Privacy Act, address what information the 

Federal Government is required or permitted to disclose.’’ The Congressional Research service went on to say that the Secret Science 

bill ‘‘would be implemented in the context of these statutes.’’ 

In addition, once again, as a doctor, I know that medical researchers code personal health information to protect patient confidentiality. 

Finally, let me say that this bill is not a burden on the EPA. It 

does not apply retroactively to past EPA actions. It only applies to 

new actions. Many scientific experts and former EPA officials have 

stated the EPA can accomplish these requirements without imposing burdens. This bill does not require EPA to collect or dissemi-
294 

nate information. It simply tells the agency to rely only on the best 

publicly available science. 

So I encourage my colleagues to support strengthening the EPA’s 

regulatory process so that the public can have the assurance that 

the EPA’s regulations, guidances and assessments will provide the 

environmental and health benefits that they have been promised. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The text of S. 544 follows:] 
295 
296 
297 
298 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. I am going to 

comment also that this bill is essentially the same as the House 

bill that passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. One of my 

close friends, Lamar Smith, who is the author of that bill, it is one 

that is very, very meaningful to most of us. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, I am going to yield most of my time to Senator Markey. I want to make a point, though. We just voted a bill 

that everyone on the Republican side says, oh, we are going to give 

the EPA all this authority, take authority away from the States, 

and at the same time now, we take away the ability for the EPA 

to use science. This is insane. It is just a joke. And it costs a billion 

dollars. 

This is the deal. My friends who are so fiscally responsible, according to the CBO, complying with the requirements of this bill 

will coast a billion just over the next 4 years. But the bill provides 

only a million a year for EPA. This is a joke. And I know I speak 

for every single Democrat on this side. We are appalled at this bill, 

and we are going to really make it hard to you to get this on the 

floor. 

But move forward. And I would yield the rest of my time to Ed 

Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. I thank you. I thank the Ranking Member. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Sanders is seeking recognition. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me quote from 

the letter from the president of the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science. She writes, ‘‘I am writing on behalf of the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s 

largest general scientific society, to express deep concerns about 

the impact of this legislation.’’ We have another letter from the Allergy and Asthma Network, the American College of Preventive 

Medicine, the American Lung Association, the American Public 

Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, Health Care 

Without Harm, National Association of County and City Health Officials, National Association for the Medical Direction of Respiratory Care, Trust for America’s Health. They urge a no vote on 

this legislation. 

Now, with all due respect to my good friend, Senator Barrasso, 

and Senator Inhofe, both are good friends, you represent a political 

party which overwhelmingly rejects what the vast majority of scientists are telling us about the most important environmental crisis facing humanity, and that is climate change. And in fact, all 

over this country and all over the world, the Republican party is 

perceived to be an anti-science party. And now you are coming before this committee and saying, we should tell the leading scientists of the world how they should do science based on the fact 

that we, Republicans, most, not all, have rejected the overwhelming 

amount of scientific evidence on a key scientific issue, which is 

global warming. 

So I would quote what Senator Boxer said. This is kind of laughable, and I would urge a strong no on this vote. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey. 
299 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of 

concerns about the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015. First, it is 

obviously ironic that a bill that claims to reform science allegedly 

done in secret would not get the benefit of a hearing in the U.S. 

Senate before we would be marking it up. Just as science benefits 

from transparency, so does legislating. And that is why the Democratic members of the committee joined with Senator Boxer and me 

in sending the chairman a letter requesting that this controversial 

bill have a hearing before we mark it up. 

Good legislative process is similar to the scientific method every 

elementary school student learns. You ask a question, then you 

gather data to investigate a possible answer, and finally you reach 

a conclusion. But now we are considering a legislative conclusion 

before we have done the legislative investigation. 

And even while we are considering this conclusion today, I am 

told that this committee is planning to hold a hearing on EPA 

science next month taking this bill up now before there is a hearing does not make any sense. Without a hearing we are left to 

grapple with deciphering bill language that appears to dramatically 

change what data and scientific research the EPA can use in fulfilling its mission to protect public health and welfare. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the effect of this bill would 

be to cut in half the number of studies EPA would use to inform 

its actions. 

Our Nation’s environmental laws have succeeded over the years 

because EPA is required to use the best available science. This bill 

would force them to use whatever science was available after legal 

challenges generated from the broad language of this legislation. 

Instead of enabling the EPA to keep improving the clean air and 

water protections that benefit all of us, this bill protects polluters 

by effectively limiting what information EPA can use to inform its 

work. For example, the requirement that information be publicly 

available online will preclude confidential industry data from being 

used to inform EPA’s actions. It would also keep most health studies which us personal health data from being used. 

Health studies would face another challenge on the language on 

reproduction of research results. Many health studies involve information from a large number of people gathered over years and 

even decades. Waiting for a decade to reproduce results about the 

health impacts of air pollution would just mean more kids with 

asthma and more illnesses that could have been avoided. 

EPA would also lose the ability to use information that was developed from one-time events like toxic air pollution releases and 

oil spills. We should want EPA to learn from the results of using 

dispersants during the BPA oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This bill 

would prevent that. 

Science should be at the foundation of health and environmental 

policymaking. Transparency and reproducibility are fundamental to 

good science and the peer review process and deserve our attention. 

I have been working for years to create and improve the public 

registry of clinical trials that is now maintained by the National 

Institutes of Health, for example. It provides an additional way for 

researchers and the public to review health research while protecting the individual participants of those studies. 
300 

We should be working to strengthen the scientific information 

EPA uses to protect public health and improve air and water quality, not limiting it as this bill does. To paraphrase my Republican 

colleagues, this is something that absolutely does not require not 

science, not silence that will in fact inhibit legitimate intellectual 

and scientific inquiry, but in fact, in my opinion, this debate should 

be about how we have more openness, how we ensure that this 

process is aired out so that the decisions which we are about to 

make would be those based upon the information which we need. 

And I will have two appropriate amendments to make in order 

to correct that at the appropriate time in this process. And I yield 

back. 

Senator INHOFE. And I would advise the Senator, the appropriate 

time is here. Do you seek recognition for an amendment? 

Senator MARKEY. I do seek recognition, and I would like to offer 

Markey Amendment No. 1. 

Senator INHOFE. Markey Amendment No. 1. You are recognized. 

Senator MARKEY. I thank you, and I would like to, I am offering 

this with Senator Boxer, and co-sponsored by Senator Whitehouse. 

This amendment would change the criteria for scientific and 

technical information by striking the language that effectively limits what information EPA can use to inform its work and replaces 

it with a requirement that the funding sources of the information 

be made publicly available. The language my amendment strikes 

would restrict the information EPA could use in a number of ways, 

as I outlined in my earlier statement. 

My amendment would replace this problematic language with a 

requirement that the funding sources of the information the EPA 

uses be made publicly available. Disclosure of funding relationships 

leads to the open debate that is necessary for responsible rulemaking. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, and the American 

Geophysical Union require the disclosure of funding sources and 

potential conflicts of interest. 

Companies and organizations funding legitimate intellectual and 

scientific inquiry to use the term Republican colleagues have used 

previously should have no trouble in disclosing their financial support. This is a common sense amendment that would fix major 

problems in the underlying bill and add additional requirements 

that would improve transparency of information that EPA uses to 

make its decisions. 

I urge an aye vote. 

[The text of Markey-Boxer Amendment No. 1 follows:] 
301 
302 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the Markey Amendment No. 1. This amendment would strike 

the most important provision of the bill, the provision that requires 

the EPA to rely on scientific and technical information that is publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent 

analysis and insert a requirement that EPA rely on information 

that is ‘‘funded by sources that are made publicly available.’’ 

This amendment completely defeats the purpose of the bill, 

which is to ensure that EPA actions are based on the best publicly 

available science that can be verified by independent experts. I 

strongly recommend a no vote. 

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, because the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts talked about wanting to clear the air. But 

virtually all the Clean Air regulations under the Obama administration have been justified by data collected over 30 years ago, over 

30 years ago, which has been withheld from the public and cannot 

be replicated. That is the problem here, Mr. Chairman, so I would 

recommend a no vote. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a motion on the Markey Amendment 

No. 1? 

Senator BOXER. So moved. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. Is a roll call required? The Clerk will call the 

roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 
303 

Senator SANDERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. Having failed to receive a majority, the amendment is not agreed to. 

Other amendments? Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Amendment No. 2. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey, Amendment No. 2. You are 

recognized. 

Senator MARKEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And I 

offer this amendment as well with Senator Boxer and Senator 

Whitehouse. This amendment is simple. It adds a new section to 

the bill to ensure that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency can continue to consider and rely upon peer reviewed scientific publications. Peer review is the foundation of 

modern science. It is a self-correcting process that has helped to advance science, technology and public health in America and around 

the world. 

As Republican colleagues wrote in February, ‘‘The credibility of 

a scientific finding, research paper, report of advancement should 

be weighed on its compliance with the scientific method and ability 

to meet the principles of sound science. In short, it should be 

weighed on the merits.’’ 

I agree with that. That is why the EPA Administrator should be 

encouraged to rely on peer-reviewed science, which by definition 

has been weighed on its merits. The EPA Administrator should be 

able to continue using the best and most current peer-reviewed 

science to inform the critical role for the EPA. I urge a yes vote 

on my amendment. 

[The text of Markey-Boxer Amendment No. 2 follows:] 
304 
305 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I will speak in opposition to Markey Amendment 

No. 2. This amendment would add a provision to the bill allowing 

the EPA to use information in peer-reviewed literature, even if 

publication is based on data that is prohibited from public disclosure. This amendment completely defeats the purpose of the bill, 

which is to ensure that EPA actions are based on the best publicly 

available science that can be verified by independent experts. 

But by stating that nothing in the Act prevents the EPA from 

considering or relying on any peer-reviewed science, the amendment seems to imply that the underlying bill would otherwise do 

so. EPA, through its implementation of the Information Quality 

Act, is already required to rely on peer-reviewed information. Nothing in this bill changes that. 

What the bill would accomplish and what this amendment would 

undermine is to ensure that the science the EPA relies on is transparent and verifiable to a much greater agree than peer review allows. Peer review alone is not a sufficient check. One of the problems leading to this bill is the EPA relies on peer-reviewed studies 

where the peer reviewer did not even have access to the underlying 

data. 

The simple premise behind the bill is that public policy should 

be based on information that is public. You take a look at peer review alone, it doesn’t provide the necessary level of transparency 

or opportunity to allow independent scientists to verify the work 

that the EPA relies on. 

For this reason, I urge a no vote on the amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a motion? 

Senator MARKEY. I so move. Will you call the yeas and nays, 

please? 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, second. 

Senator MARKEY. And I ask for a recorded vote. 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 
306 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to vote yes in person. Aye. 

Senator INHOFE. You are so recorded. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment failed to receive a majority. 

Markey Amendment No. 2 is defeated. 

Other amendments? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, if I might. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. I would call up Boxer-Markey Amendment No. 

2, which would add a new section to the bill to ensure that EPA 

and others are not censored from using terms commonly found in 

peer-reviewed scientific literature in official documents and presentations. 

[The text of Boxer-Markey Amendment No. 2 follows:] 
307 
308 
309 

Senator BOXER. We have seen some Governors around the country saying that their teams cannot, in their organization, can’t use 

the term global warming or climate change or other phrases. I am 

hopeful that you will accept this by voice vote. I would take it by 

voice vote. 

Senator INHOFE. I believe we would accept it by voice vote. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Senator INHOFE. All those in favor of the Boxer Amendment No. 

2 say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[No audible response]. 

Senator INHOFE. The ayes clearly have it. The amendment is 

adopted. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Other amendments? 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was concerned about the issue that was raised earlier about the 

fact that we haven’t had a hearing. These issues over the use of 

science would benefit greatly from having experts in the use of 

science explain to us the pros and cons of this approach, or enlighten us. The fact that we are doing this without any sort of 

hearing, I would just request, if it is possible, to have a unanimous 

consent that we set this bill aside until we have actually had testimony from experts, so that the use of science is placed into the appropriate understanding of those who know what they are talking 

about. 

Senator INHOFE. The Chair objects. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator INHOFE. Other amendments? If not, is there a motion? 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would move approval 

and adoption of S. 544. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator ROUNDS. Second. 

Senator BOXER. May I be heard on this? 

Senator INHOFE. You may be heard. 

Senator BOXER. You know, it is rare that I say this, but this bill, 

I look forward to it coming to the floor, because it is going to pass, 

and I look forward to having debate with the Republican party on 

science. I think that is a definite debate that needs to be had. 

Senator INHOFE. And I agree. 

Senator BOXER. And I want to have a recorded vote on this. And 

I look forward to that debate very, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 
310 
311 
312 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator CARPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11, the nays are 9. 

Senator INHOFE. That is a majority; S. 544 is reported favorably 

to the Senate. 

Now we move to the remaining legislation, the Scarano nomination and resolutions to be reported favorably to the Senate en bloc. 

However, before I do, does any member seek recognition on the remaining agenda items? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Is now the time to talk about the CardinBoozman bill? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 
313 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, first of all, I would like to thank Senator 

Cardin for his work on the Water Resources Research Amendment 

Act. Senator Cardin and I introduced this legislation last Congress. 

I am glad that we are working to advance it here today. 

Our bill reauthorizes a program that grants to 54 established 

water resources research institutes in each State, territory and the 

District of Columbia for applied water supply research. Although 

this is a very small grant program, it allows Arkansas and other 

States to solve serious problems related to our water needs. 

For example, in Arkansas, the program allows researchers at the 

Arkansas Water Resources Center to study how we can grow crops 

while using less water and lowering costs. Each Federal dollar 

spent must be matched with $2 non-Federal. This is the highest 

match requirement of any Federal research program. As a result, 

this program is a cost-effective way of solving water quality and 

quantity problems. 

Again, I appreciate Senator Cardin’s work, and I am glad to join 

him. I also thank you, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member 

Boxer, for accommodating this bill in today’s agenda. I thank you. 

[The text of the Cardin-Boozman legislation follows:] 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 
320 
321 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to report this in the rest 

of the agenda just for the record. 

Senator INHOFE. We are going to have to have one more show up 

here to have the quorum. While we are looking, let me mention one 

of the things in the final things to be considered is the naming of 

a courthouse in Oklahoma City, the William J. Holloway United 

States Courthouse. I have been very familiar with this individual. 

He was supported by all the judges, current and past. President 

Lyndon Johnson nominated Judge Holloway to the Tenth Circuit in 

August 1968, where he served as Chief Justice from all the way to 

1991. He passed away in 2014. 

Judge Holloway was the longest-serving judge in the Tenth Circuit. During his service, he authored over 900 opinions. As new 

Tenth Circuit Judge Robert Bacharach described Judge Holloway, 

‘‘He simply decided cases by asking what does the statute say, 

what does the Constitution say, what are the facts of the case.’’ 

And I can talk about him as long as I need to until our eleventh 

person gets here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I also would say a remark or 

two about the bipartisan legislation, S. 611, but would also assure 

members that I will quit talking at such point as the eleventh committee member arrives. 

Senator INHOFE. Keep talking. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WICKER. Let me just say, let me thank the members of 

the committee for their indication of support for S. 611, the Grass 

Roots and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act. It reauthorizes the Safe Drinking Water Act’s technical Assistance and 

Training provisions for the same $15 million per year that it was 

previously authorized. The authorization—the last authorization 

expired in 2004. 

There is one small change, specifically under this new legislation 

the EPA would have the authority to direct the funding to nonprofit organizations to also provide onsite assistance, regional 

training and assistance with implementation, monitoring, plans, 

rules, regulations and water security enhancements to ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. And of course, what this 

whole program is designed to do is to assist the small communities 

who would very much like to comply with Federal law with regard 

to safe drinking water but simply don’t have the resources for the 

technical assistance and training. 

So I thank Senator Heitkamp for introducing this bipartisan bill 

with me. And I thank the 17 co-sponsors, including 10 Republicans 

and 7 Democrats, for co-sponsoring the legislation, many of whom 

are on this committee. I urge a yes vote, and believe we will get 

a yes vote on S. 611. 

Senator INHOFE. That will be considered en bloc. 

Senator WICKER. Right. 

Senator INHOFE. During my opening statement, Senator Wicker, 

I commented that Oklahoma is enough like Mississippi that we 

have an equal interest, and I would say the same thing about 

South Dakota and Arkansas, there are a lot of small communities 

who will be very pleased with the passage of your legislation. 
322 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, sir. 

Now, in addition, I assume that we have an indication that that 

eleventh vote is on the way. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator WICKER. With regard to another piece of legislation—— 

Senator INHOFE. Every time I hear that, I think they are probably on the 14th Street Bridge right now. 

Senator WICKER. Unfortunately, some were right here and left, 

I think, not realizing that would cause a quorum to evaporate. 

Let me just state with regard to S. 1034, Mr. Chairman, a bill 

to designate the United States Courthouse at 501 East Court 

Street in Jackson as the Charles Clark United States Courthouse, 

the most preeminent Mississippi jurist ever to live was L.Q.C. 

Lamar, a Supreme Court justice who was mentioned in President 

Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage. He has received his own recognition. 

The second most prominent Mississippi jurist in history is 

Charles Clark, native of Memphis, Tennessee, commissioned in the 

Navy and nominated, confirmed in 1969 to the Fifth Circuit. He 

served as Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit from 1981 until 1992, 

wrote over 2,000 opinions of the court and served as chairman of 

the finance and executive committees of the Judicial Conference of 

the United States. 

So having taken care of L.Q.C. Lamar, this properly recognizes, 

I think, the second most prominent jurist in the history of our 

State. I thank the leadership of the committee also for their indicated support of this legislation. Thank you, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let’s see. We do have six Republicans and 

four Democrats. Do you have one coming? 

Senator BOXER. I don’t know. 

Senator INHOFE. I would prefer to go ahead and do this if we 

could. However, if somebody else leaves, it will have to be that 

way. 

We have lots of activity out there. 

Senator BOXER. I can stay 6 minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. I think we already have a motion and a second. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I have a little bit of business. 

Can I ask unanimous consent that all of Senator Cardin’s statements on all the amendments and final be placed in the record in 

the appropriate places? 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. I understand that Senator Sessions is almost 

here. 

Senator CARPER. I think we have a jurisdictional battle, because 

the Homeland Security Committee claims post office. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. OK. We are going to recess to the call of the 

Chair. Unfortunately, there are no scheduled votes. 

Senator BOXER. We can do the GSA ones. 

Senator INHOFE. That is right, we only need seven for those. We 

will break out from the en bloc the GSA resolutions. Is there a motion to accept them en bloc? 

Senator BOXER. Move to accept them en bloc. 
323 

Senator INHOFE. Second? 

[Motion seconded.] 

Senator INHOFE. All in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[No audible response.] 

[The text of the en bloc resolutions follows:] 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 

Senator INHOFE. They have been accepted. 

Senator BOXER. And we need to meet off the floor. 

Senator INHOFE. We are now recessing to the call of the chair. 

[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the meeting was recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] 

[Resuming April 29, 2015, 5:30 p.m.] 

Senator INHOFE. I call the business meeting back to order. We 

have an agreement with the minority for a rolling quorum. Additionally, we have two members of the minority, Senators Cardin 

and Carper. I appreciate the opportunity finish our business meeting on these remaining items. 

I ask unanimous consent to call up the following remaining bills 

and nomination en bloc and report them favorably to the full Senate for consideration. 

Those remaining items are the following: S. 653, Water Resources Research Amendments Act of 2015. S. 611, Grassroots 

Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act. S. 

612, A bill to designate the Federal building and United States 

courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the 

‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States Courthouse.’’ 

S. 261, A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 

200 NW 4th Street in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘William 

J. Holloway, Jr. United States Courthouse.’’ S. 1034, A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 501 East Court 

Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Charles Clark United States 

Courthouse.’’ Mr. Mark Scarano, nominee to be Federal Co-chairperson of the Northern Border Regional Commission. 

Is there a motion? 

Is there a second? 

Without objection. 

The aforementioned bills and nomination are adopted by unanimous consent and reported to the Senate. 

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that staff have authority to 

make technical and conforming changes to each of the matters approved including the morning of April 28. 

Without objection. 

I thank the members of the EPW Committee and adjourn. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 

Æ