That is an important question Senator Inhofe and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. The Lautenberg bill tries to address the concern about forcing paralysis by analysis in several ways. First, the bill establishes that `unreasonable risk under the conditions of use' as the safety standard to be applied by EPA. ``Unreasonable risk'' does not mean no risk; it means that EPA must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the risks posed by a specific high priority substance are reasonable in the circumstances of exposure and use. Second, the bill requires EPA to specifically identify the sensitive subpopulations that are relevant to and within the scope of the safety assessment and determination on the substance in question. At the same time, EPA should identify the scientific basis for the susceptibility, to ensure transparency for all stakeholders. In this way, the legislation affords EPA the discretion to identify relevant subpopulations but does not require--or expect--that all hypothetical subpopulations be addressed. While a principle element of this compromise is including protections for potentially susceptible subpopulations to better protect pregnant women and children, a core of the bill since it was first introduced by Senator Lautenberg and I was never to require the national standard to be protective of every identified subpopulation in every instance.…
Share
More from David Vitter
Protecting innovation and not materially altering the new chemicals process was a critical part of the final compromise. Every effort was made to ensure EPA has the right tools to review new chemical substances but the amendments to this…
I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
we rise together with so many other Members of the Senate on a bipartisan basis to strongly support the chemical safety bill which passed the U.S. House of Representatives with enormous bipartisan support and is ready to pass here in the…
We need tough new laws to hold corporate executives personally accountable, and we need tough prosecutors who have the courage to go after people at the top.





