David Vitter

We should have standards as high as the European Union.

Thanks for joining us today.

We enjoy great quality seafood and that plays a major role in our culture and our economy.

This program is vital to many in the seafood business.

A related issue to all of this, and certainly an issue that impacts small business, both over 50 employees and under is ObamaCare.

So it's clearly increasing your tax burden?

We work on those sorts of individual cases all the time, whether it involves the IRS or other Federal agencies like the VA.

I would like to see Congress increase oversight through legislation and bring about consequences for IRS abuse like this.

The topic of our Field Hearing today is 'Reducing the Federal Tax Burden for America's Small Businesses.'

There are plenty of other impacts about federal investments that you are saying are directly impacted that we think is going to shut down a bunch of necessary activity in large parts of the United States.

Why not state it very precisely in an actual instrument that has the same standing as the Executive Order?

I would just echo that request.

Senator Vitter was spot-on.

Now, there is authorization for that under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.

But, that is--I assume what you are saying is that is different from and does not just magically transfer under ObamaCare to the Small Business Exchange.

I do think this would set us back in terms of their focus, which is chemical risk assessment and management.

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.

First of all, just to correct the record, this proposal has always in the past had strong Republican opposition.

I oppose this amendment. With all due respect, I think this is sort of the fire, ready, aim amendment.

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.

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.

The Environmental Defense Fund supports the Lautenberg Act as a solid compromise that fixes the biggest problems in the current law.

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.

I am going to urge a no vote on this well intended amendment. This would alter the fundamental compromise in this bill.

This bill is a marked improvement over current law. It does represent significant positive compromise.