David Vitter

Doesn't the Udall-Vitter bill grandfather in permanently all State chemical specific regulations that were in place January 1st, 2015?

And the Vitter-Udall bill gives EPA more resources through user fees, correct?

So if a State has already acted, even if EPA takes on a chemical, even if EPA says, you can drink this and you will have a great life, that State regulation is still in effect?

There has been this attempt over and over to somehow characterize this as a pure industry bill with somehow no support among groups that care about public health and safety.

With the new fee structure and the new authority and enhanced powers given the EPA under Udall-Vitter, don't we have a much better chance of achieving broader protection of public health than we have now?

Yes. And in fact, the Udall-Vitter bill gives EPA more authority, correct?

So if a State has a regulation on a chemical that EPA takes up, that regulation doesn't go away unless and until EPA essentially blesses the chemical?

The principle also reflects a desire that there be timely decisions.

EPA needs clear authority to take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the safety standards.

Isn't it true that EPA has complete discretion over accepting or denying those requests, over accepting or denying that money and that request to take up any certain chemical?

TSCA reform should encourage green chemistry, assure transparency, and include stricter requirements.

I believe we have the opportunity to actually reform a law and improve lives and save lives.

Senator Tom Udall stepped in to help preserve Frank's legacy.

Are we here to accomplish something that protects the public health and the environment?

Your work and EPA's work with us has been very constructive.

The first is that chemicals should be reviewed against a safety standard that is based on sound science and reflects risk-based criteria, protective of human health and the environment.

We cannot leave the people of my State and so many others unprotected.

Updating this law was a long-time goal, it was a passion of Frank's.

I urge everyone participating in this hearing today to reject attacks on anyone's integrity, character and motivations.

The Udall-Vitter bill we will be discussing today, among other things, is the only bipartisan bill on radar.

I appreciate your work on that. We will continue to work and resolve that.

I hope we get this done to honor Senator Lautenberg's legacy.

As a matter of fact, Senator and Congresswoman Edwards, we were having some challenges and still have some challenges in Maryland, trying to modify this data.

I will explain and speak on this amendment even though it is not pending as we speak. I will also file an ongoing objection to anyone setting aside the pending amendment for another or for any votes being scheduled until this matter can be…

My biggest concern in this whole space since the crisis, including Dodd-Frank, including Fed action or inaction, is what I think is clearly the continuation of too big to fail.