David Vitter

I think they are wrong in almost all instances.

I consider them important partners. No partner should just get anything, everything they want.

Certainly not anybody's goal who has been involved in this bill to have EPA spinning its wheels in initial assessments for a decade or more.

I think you have made it clear that those are decoupled. I think that is a big step forward from the current law.

I found this hearing very, very useful, and it continues a lot of conversations with all interested stakeholders.

I think this bill fixes that.

I think it is a perfect example of one of the misimpressions I was talking about in my opening statement.

I think this is a great example of one of those clarifications.

We are working on proposed revisions to the bill to address all of these concerns.

In no way, shape or form did Frank and I intend this legislation to eliminate private rights of action under State tort law.

We thought that was clear in our language, but Senator Udall and I are going to make it crystal clear in our manager's amendment.

We are not trying to shut down any private causes of action, we are not trying to have any significant impact there.

I want to particularly highlight the testimony of two folks who were in charge of this exact set of rules and regulations in law at the EPA.

Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer, for convening this important hearing today on Toxic Substances Control Act.

Well, I am hoping that we are going to change that record over time and that once this office is ramped up in terms of staffing, we will streamline the process.

I think part of the challenge now that it is so popular and fully funded is the way that DOT is structured to administer those loans is not particularly as effective as it could be.

I think I disagree with that. Would that not, in fact, increase the uncertainty and probably increase the bureaucratic time requirement in such a way that is would be less effective and more costly in the marketplace?

I am glad one significant person is here from DOT to listen to this because that is the point.

I am not suggesting that we should bend much less break the rules about eligibility or creditworthiness.

I would urge you to go look at that and maybe supplement your answer because if what you say is true, and I hope it is, then it is just sort of a useless time-consuming question and then why not take it out and not make people, you know…

Again, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.

This is an important hearing that I have been looking forward to.

A big set of concerns of Republicans on the committee has been the need for increased transparency and accountability.

This is completely preemptive and unnecessary

This is extremely troubling for all of us on the Republican side