Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/27
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Regroup After TSCA Setback
May 27, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers are looking to regroup as they leave Washington, D.C., for a weeklong recess likely without achieving key agenda items, particularly a chemical law overhaul. -
Sen. Paul Puts Senate's TSCA Vote in Limbo
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
An anticipated May 26 Senate vote on legislation to overhaul the nation's primary chemicals law was blocked by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). -
Senate Vote on TSCA Reform Bill on Hold
May 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Senate’s decision on whether to approve a bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) remains on hold, after a request for unanimous consent to vote on the measure was blocked. -
Sen. Paul Stops TSCA Reform Vote
May 26, 2016 | Inside EPA
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is blocking a Senate floor vote on pending legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) due to his concerns over the bill's criminal enforcement and state preemption provisions, preventing senators from voting on the bill until Paul removes the hold or 60 senators vote to override it. -
TSCA Reform on Hold Again – and Over What This Time?
May 26, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Well, it looks like American families will have to wait a bit longer for better protection from toxic chemicals, with today’s decision by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to place a hold on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. -
How to Support Clean Water, Safer Chemicals and Climate Action
May 27, 2016 | GreenBiz
By Zach Bernstein
As we look ahead to the November election, we may be concerned that a number of policy debates in Washington and the states could have outsized impacts on the business community. -
Commentary: Update of Toxic Substances Control Act a Worthy Step That's Long Overdue
May 27, 2016 | The Center for Public Integrity
By Jim Morris
In a groundbreaking report six years ago, a National Cancer Institute panel warned that it was time to pay closer attention to environmental causes of a disease that takes more than a half-million American lives each year. -
PCB, Cancer Link Results in $46.5 Million Monsanto Verdict
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Brown
A St. Louis jury hit Monsanto Co. with a $46.5 million verdict May 25 on behalf of three plaintiffs who claimed that they developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma as a result of eating food that contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Walker v. Monsanto Co., Mo. Cir. Ct., No. 1122-CC09621, 5/25/16). -
Monsanto Ordered to Pay $46.5M in PCB Case
May 26, 2016 | E&E News PM
Monsanto Co. has been ordered by a St. Louis jury to pay $17.5 million in damages to three plaintiffs, along with $29 million in punitive damages. -
Republicans to Reevaluate After Energy, Water Bill Fails
May 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nancy Ognanovich and Jonathan Nicholson
House and Senate Republican leaders signaled they will reevaluate their plans to move all 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2017 through the chambers this summer after the popular energy and water spending measure (H.R. 5055) failed on the eve of the Memorial Day recess. -
Lawmakers Not Ready to Give Up on Energy and Water Bill
May 27, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Senior appropriators are frustrated over the unexpected defeat of the House's energy and water spending yesterday, but they also believe there's a chance the measure will still make it to the president's desk. -
Clean Power Plan ‘Regulatory Cram-Down,' Opponent Says
May 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Congressional proponents of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants should have pursued legislation rather than deferring to the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the industry, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said. -
House Energy, Water Bill Fails After LGBT Measures Added
May 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
In a surprise move, the House defeated a $37.4 billion energy and water spending bill after amendments related to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights were added to the legislation. -
LGBT Fight Sinks House Spending Bill
May 26, 2016 | Politico
By Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan
House conservatives on Thursday blocked passage of a relatively uncontroversial energy and water spending measure after Democrats attached an amendment that would bar federal contractors from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. -
White House Shifts Strategy on Spending Bills
May 27, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Wyl and Matthew Nussbaum
The White House is taking a stealth approach to the appropriations process this year. -
Donald Trump’s Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules
May 27, 2016 | The New York Times
By Ashley Parker and Coral Davenport
Donald J. Trump traveled Thursday to the heart of America’s oil and gas boom, where he called for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations while vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement,” the 2015 accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to curb climate change. -
CASAC Members Urge EPA To Broaden Scope Of Next PM NAAQS Review
May 26, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Members of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) particulate matter review panel are urging EPA to consider a wider range of issues and data than proposed so far when it reviews the current national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and larger coarse particulate matter (PM10).
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Regroup After TSCA Setback
May 27, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers are looking to regroup as they leave Washington, D.C., for a weeklong recess likely without achieving key agenda items, particularly a chemical law overhaul.
Bipartisan legislation to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, H.R. 2576, cleared the House earlier in the week, and many senators thought they could get unanimous support in their chamber.
For days, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said quick passage of the bill under unanimous consent was likely yesterday, only to be thwarted when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) objected.
Paul said he had not had time to read the bill. Inhofe and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) shot back, saying the bill's provisions had been under discussion for months.
Paul said he was also concerned about parts of the bill setting criminal violations for individuals who use banned chemicals and establishing a stronger federal regulatory structure that would usurp states' ability to choose less regulation.
In an email to reporters, Inhofe spokeswoman Donelle Harder said Paul had at least nine months to raise the objections.
"I have personally carried and birthed a child in the same amount of time in which Rand Paul could have raised objections to the few lines in this bill that he is now calling 'rushed,'" Harder said.
Paul's camp responded that the latest compromise version has only been public for days. Paul campaign aide Doug Stafford tweeted that "since the current bill only emerged this week that's remarkable."
The Senate approved an earlier version of the bill, S. 697 -- or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" -- last year by unanimous consent. Paul did not object (E&E Daily, Dec. 18, 2015).
The American Chemistry Council said in a statement that it's "sincerely disappointed that Senator Paul has decided to stand in the way of efforts to provide greater certainty and clarity to industry while holding EPA to strict accountability and transparency requirements."
If Paul doesn't drop his objection, lawmakers will likely have to wait until after recess to negotiate an agreement to pass the bill by unanimous consent or take procedural votes to overcome the hurdle.
A top Senate aide said he did not expect action on TSCA today.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/27/stories/1060037997
-
Sen. Paul Puts Senate's TSCA Vote in Limbo
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
An anticipated May 26 Senate vote on legislation to overhaul the nation's primary chemicals law was blocked by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
The bill “includes preemption of states. It includes a new federal regime, which would basically supersede regulations or lack of regulations in Louisiana or Texas or Oklahoma, and so I think it deserves to be read, to be understood, and to be debated,” Paul said in floor remarks.
“This bill came here on Tuesday,” Paul said Thursday, May 26.
“It involves new criminalization,” he said. “I object to just rushing this through.” Paul said that he would not approve of the measure being considered under unanimous consent rules in the Senate.
Inhofe: Key Bill Provisions Cleared in December
The bill, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 2576), would update the core provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time since 1976, by providing the Environmental Protection Agency additional authorities Congress had intended to give the agency four decades ago, senators said during floor remarks May 25.
The legislation sailed through the House with a 403–12 vote May 24 (101 DEN A-1, 5/25/16).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, sought to “hotline” the bill with a May 26 Senate vote, meaning it would be brought up under unanimous consent procedure (102 DEN A-16, 5/26/16).
Under that process the bill would be deemed passed unless a single senator objected, which Paul did.
The provisions of the bill to which Paul objected “have been with us six months—not two days—that's exactly what we voted on in December, you can't ask for more time than that,” Inhofe said in a floor reply to Paul.
Vitter: Bill Good for People, U.S. Business
Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who spent more than two years working with groups holding distinctly different political views, were joined by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)—a past opponent of the legislation—in floor speeches urging colleagues to back the bill.
H.R. 2576 achieved a goal Republicans and Democrats have worked for since 2013, Vitter said on the floor.
It achieves “two absolutely necessary objectives. One, to make sure we fully protect the health and safety of all Americans with respect to the chemicals that are in products that we use every day. That's paramount. That has to happen,” Vitter said.
“And two, to make sure we do it in such a way that allows American companies to remain science and innovation leaders in this important sector of our economy,” he said.
ACC: ‘Brakes on Common Sense Policy.’
The American Chemistry Council echoed Vitter's point in its statement: “We are sincerely disappointed that Senator Paul has decided to stand in the way of efforts to provide greater certainty and clarity to industry while holding EPA to strict accountability and transparency requirements. Senator Paul's decision to block final passage of legislation to bring chemical regulation into the 21st century is putting the brakes on common sense policy that will have far-reaching benefits for America's economy and public health. We hope Senator Paul will quickly reconsider his position.”
Boxer said, “I'm hopeful this can be resolved, because this bill has been the most complicated, difficult and emotional journey that I have ever had in the United States Senate.”
Boxer: TSCA Reform Is Real, Not Theory
Through the work of many organizations and lawmakers, Boxer told colleagues on the Senate floor, the bill was transformed from “a disaster” to something “that I believe is better than current law.”
Reforming TSCA, she said, “Isn't about a theory. It's about our families” and getting epidemics of cancer, reduced IQ, obesity, fertility problems and other disease epidemics under control.
Udall said “getting here has taken years.”
“It takes work. It takes patience, and it takes compromise. The end result is a strong regulatory program to test and regulate chemicals,” Udall said.
Udall, Inhofe on Path Forward
The House vote provided “the largest margin for a major environmental bill in decades, and I believe the Senate very soon will follow suit,” he said on the Senate floor.
“We're going to have a full court press to do it right after we get back,” Udall later told Bloomberg BNA.
Inhofe said: “We know this thing is going to pass. We know when we get back it will pass.”
When the Senate returns in June, Inhofe said, the Senate's leadership will work to have H.R. 2576 taken up without any amendments and debated for up to three hours.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90474635&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=496201000&searchid=27685887&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
Senate Vote on TSCA Reform Bill on Hold
May 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Senate’s decision on whether to approve a bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) remains on hold, after a request for unanimous consent to vote on the measure was blocked.
Senator Rand Paul (R–Kentucky) objected to bringing the negotiated bill to the floor for a vote, saying that inadequate time has been given to review the measure.
“I think it deserves to be read, to be understood, and to be debated. And so I object to just rushing this through,” he said. And, “I will continue to object until we’ve had time to look at the bill thoroughly,” he added.
Text of the compromised bill was released last Friday, following months of negotiation. A finalised version, with an additional House amendment, was issued Monday.
The House passed the 180-page measure by a wide margin Tuesday.
In floor remarks, Senator David Vitter (R–Louisiana) said he “regret[s] an objection to this very reasonable path forward”. The final version of the bill has been available for almost a week, he said, and it is “largely similar” to the Senate bill that passed the chamber unanimously last year.
According to Senator Jim Inhofe (R–Oklahoma), “we know it’s going to pass, that’s not the issue.”
But he said: “There are people making decisions today as to what they’re going to be doing and what products they’re going to be manufacturing, [and] where they’re going to do it. To put [this vote] off for two more weeks after we’ve been working on this for six months, is not a fair way to conduct business.”
Added Mr Vitter, “it’s unfortunate we can’t move forward in this sort of clear, reasonable and straightforward way, but we certainly will in the near future.”
The Senate will begin a recess following this week’s legislative activity, and will return 6 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47688/senate-vote-on-tsca-reform-bill-on-hold
-
Sen. Paul Stops TSCA Reform Vote
May 26, 2016 | Inside EPA
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is blocking a Senate floor vote on pending legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) due to his concerns over the bill's criminal enforcement and state preemption provisions, preventing senators from voting on the bill until Paul removes the hold or 60 senators vote to override it.
A spokeswoman for Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) said in an email to reporters that Paul put the hold in place May 26 in order to secure more time to read and consider the provisions after a floor exchange with Inhofe and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), an original co-sponsor of the bill.
“Paul’s objection is over two provisions in this bill -- preemption and criminal penalties. These provisions were in the Senate TSCA reform bill that was brought up via unanimous consent and passed by voice vote -- with no members objecting -- in December,” the spokeswoman said.
Senate approval is the last step to send TSCA reform legislation to be signed by President Obama, who has voiced support for the measure, after House lawmakers on May 24 approved the bill, H.R. 2576, in a 403-12 vote. Supporters had hoped to advance it to the White House before Congress' Memorial Day recess.
The consensus bill is the result of negotiations that began late last year between leaders on the House Energy & Commerce Committee and EPW to reconcile the narrow House bill, H.R. 2576, authored by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), with a more comprehensive Senate bill, S. 697, authored by Sens. Vitter and Tom Udall (D-NM).
If ultimately signed into law, H.R. 2576 would overhaul TSCA, which was passed in 1976 and has not been significantly changed since, by greatly expanding EPA's authority to regulate chemicals, giving the agency new powers to mandate reviews of whether existing substances are safe, including the thousands purportedly grandfathered under current law. It would also amend language that an appellate court in 1991 found barred EPA from banning asbestos -- one of the few times the agency has sought to ban an existing chemical.
The final bill includes restrictive provisions preempting state chemicals regulations when EPA begins review of whether a chemical is safe. If federal regulators then fail to complete those steps after three and a half years then states would again be free to act to regulate them.
The Vitter spokeswoman said in the email that provision, and the criminal-enforcement measures Paul now objects to moving without debate, are similar or identical to the version that passed the Senate by voice vote in December of 2015, meaning he has had at least five months to consider them.
“I couldn’t help but realize today that I have personally carried and birthed a child in the same amount of time in which Rand Paul could have raised objections to the few lines in this bill that he is now calling 'rushed,'” the spokeswoman said.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/sen-paul-stops-tsca-reform-vote
-
TSCA Reform on Hold Again – and Over What This Time?
May 26, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Well, it looks like American families will have to wait a bit longer for better protection from toxic chemicals, with today’s decision by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to place a hold on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Earlier this week, the House passed the legislation by a vote of 403-12, and it was due to come to Senate floor today – until Sen. Paul announced his hold.
Arguing that he needed more time to review the bill, Sen. Paul cited brand new concerns over two provisions that were already in the Senate bill when it came to the Senate floor last December by unanimous consent and passed on a voice vote with no objections. Those provisions involve criminal penalties and state preemption. Let’s look at each:
Criminal penalties
Existing TSCA already has criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations of the Act. The bill makes two changes – BOTH of them added to make TSCA consistent with other federal environmental laws:It raises the maximum fine from $25,000 to $50,000 per day for knowing and willful violations of the Act.It adds a provision that provides for higher fines or imprisonment for anyone whoknowingly and willfully puts an individual in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. This provision is virtually verbatim taken from other major Federal environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
Sen. Paul objects to this provision because, according to his floor statement today, “it involves new criminalization, new crimes that will be created at the federal level.” In other words, he apparently objects to subjecting someone who deliberately “places an individual in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury” to criminal penalties.
State preemption
Sen. Paul also apparently objects to the bill’s provisions that place limits on states’ authority in regulating chemicals, which has been, of course, a very contentious part of the debate over TSCA reform. The bill would, under certain circumstances, not allow states to impose restrictions on a chemical that are more stringent than the Federal government has imposed; see here for more detail about preemption under the bill.
But unlike, for example, the nine House Democrats who voted against the bill because of its preemption, Sen. Paul’s concern is about states being told they can’t do less than the Federal government when it comes to controlling pollution or restricting chemicals. According to his floor statement today, he objects to the bill because “it includes preemption of states – it includes a new federal regime which would basically supersede regulations or lack of regulations in Louisiana or Texas or Oklahoma" (emphasis added). Lest there be any doubt about his meaning, Paul goes on in his statement to decry Federal over-regulation.
Sen. Paul’s positions would seem to be wholly at odds with the consensus reflected in the Lautenberg Act on the need for a more effective and stronger, not weaker, Federal chemical safety system.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/05/26/tsca-reform-on-hold-again-and-over-what-this-time/#more-5293
-
How to Support Clean Water, Safer Chemicals and Climate Action
May 27, 2016 | GreenBiz
By Zach Bernstein
As we look ahead to the November election, we may be concerned that a number of policy debates in Washington and the states could have outsized impacts on the business community. The good news is, the business voice on sustainability issues could help move these contentious debates forward.
The American Sustainable Business Council asks for businesses to keep a lookout for these three issues as they come before Congress and make their opinions known to lawmakers. These are issues that the ASBC is working on with many other organizations. Fight for clean water
Last month, the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship held hearings on the EPA’s Clean Water Rule, and how it might hurt small businesses. Instead, Frank Knapp , president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce and co-chair of the ASBC board, testified as to the importance of the rule for small businesses.
What’s at stake
As Knapp noted in his testimony, clean water is a crucial resource for all businesses and for local economies.
"Ask the small businesses of Charleston, West Virginia, what happened to them after the 2014 chemical spill in the Elk River that shut down their water supply and their businesses, costing the local economy $19 million a day," Knapp said (PDF). He also pointed to ASBC polling, which found that80 percent of small business owners nationwide supported the EPA’s rule, and where 71 percent said that clean water protections were necessary to growth, compared to 6 percent who disagreed.
What you can do
The hearing nonetheless demonstrated that many members of Congress seem to believe that blocking rules designed to protect our nation’s waterways will be good for business. They need to hear from businesses such as yours who know that isn’t the case. Join the business campaign insupport of clean water today.Support strong, safe chemicals programs
Last month, ASBC was honored by the EPA as a Supporter of the Year in support of the agency’s Safer Choice program, a voluntary labeling program that gives a boost to products that meet a higher, safer standard for safety and environmental impact. The awards recognize businesses and organizations that advanced chemical safety through participation in or promotion of the Safer Choice program. ASBC members Seventh Generation and the Ashkin Group were also honored by the EPA; Earth Friendly Products, another ASBC member, won the award in 2015.
What’s at stake
The Safer Choice program represents one of the best chemical safety policies in the government, epitomizing effective collaboration between the public and private sectors. Unfortunately, chemical law as a whole is in desperate need of revision; the nation’s chemicals law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), has not been updated since it was passed in 1976.
Making matters worse, the EPA’s power to regulate chemicals under TSCA is very limited: of the 80,000 chemicals currently produced, 62,000 have never been tested under TSCA because they were already on the market in 1976.
What you can do
The success of the Safer Choice program is proof that consumers are looking for safer, healthier alternatives to chemicals currently on the market. TSCA needs to be reformed to take advantage of that, and to ensure that the values of transparency, safety and innovation are realized. Your business can help make that case; join the Companies for Safer Chemicals coalition today.Take the next step on climate change
Last month, leaders from 155 nations gathered in New York City to officiallysign the historic climate change agreement reached in Paris last year, which commits signatories to reducing their carbon emissions and slow the rise of climate change.
Signers included the leaders of the United States and China, by far thebiggest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world. While the Paris agreement represents a major step forward on climate change, especially given the sheer number of nations signing onto it, there is still much more that needs to happen to achieve its goals.
What’s at stake
Here in the United States, policymakers need to pursue more efforts to reduce carbon emissions. One, the Clean Power Plan, would require 30 percent cuts in carbon emissions from existing power plants, using 2005 levels as the baseline. The rule is being challenged in federal courts, despite that the Supreme Court previously has ruled the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
What you can do
Opponents continue to claim that businesses oppose action on climate change, a view contradicted by small business polling commissioned by ASBC. Businesses need to show their support for the Clean Power Plan, and urge their governors to continue developing plans to cut carbon emissions under the rule.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-support-clean-water-safer-chemicals-and-climate-action
-
Commentary: Update of Toxic Substances Control Act a Worthy Step That's Long Overdue
May 27, 2016 | The Center for Public Integrity
By Jim Morris
In a groundbreaking report six years ago, a National Cancer Institute panel warned that it was time to pay closer attention to environmental causes of a disease that takes more than a half-million American lives each year.
“[T]he true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated,” the panelists wrote in their transmittal letter to President Obama in April 2010. “With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread.”
The report’s authors said the federal law aimed at controlling such hazards, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, “may be the most egregious example of ineffective regulation of environmental contaminants.” Since the act’s passage, they noted, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had required testing of less than 1 percent of the chemicals in commerce and had banned or restricted only five. The law takes an innocent-until-proven-guilty approach – good for the criminal-justice system, not so good for industrial poisons. Chemical manufacturers have largely avoided disclosure of health and safety data on their products by hiding behind confidentiality provisions.
This makes recent events all the more remarkable. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation making the first substantive reforms to the 40-year-old act, known as TSCA. The bill was expected to clear the Senate, and the White House has signaled its support.
Among other things, the measure would force the EPA to pick up itslaggard pace of chemical reviews, assigning the highest priority to the substances that pose the greatest risks, such as asbestos. The EPA’s inability to ban the mineral despite its role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans has been held up as a prime example of TSCA’s feebleness. The Center for Public Integrity has published dozens of stories exposing flaws in the regulatory system.
The reform legislation, a product of negotiations that began in 2013, has been praised by groups like the Environmental Defense Fund, but is far from perfect. It would prohibit states like California, which have adopted standards stricter than federal ones, from putting restrictions on chemicals while they were under EPA review (though state rules already in place before April 22 of this year would stand). In fact, industry frustration with inconsistencies in those rules helped lawmakers forge the compromise that led to the bill.
The accelerated testing by the EPA would be funded by $25 million a year in fees from the chemical industry. The Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization, calls that figure inadequate, saying, “Even the best law will be meaningless if [the] EPA doesn’t have the resources needed to review the hundreds of dangerous chemicals already on the market.”
One public-health advocate who has lived and breathed TSCA reform over the past few years is Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of theAsbestos Disease Awareness Organization. Reinstein, who lives near Los Angeles and has been a fixture on Capitol Hill, lost her husband, Alan, in 2006 to mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer almost always connected to asbestos exposure.
In an email to the Center, Reinstein pointed out that asbestos continues to kill 15,000 Americans each year. “While this bill does not immediately prohibit asbestos imports,” she wrote, “it does represent a landmark step forward.”
The need for a stronger law is beyond dispute. The acute and chronic effects of the paint-stripping solvent methylene chloride, found at any Home Depot or Lowe’s, for example, have been known for decades. A Center analysis last year found that at least 56 accidental deaths had been linked to the chemical in the United States since 1980. On top of that, methylene chloride can cause cancer. The EPA is finally getting around to doing something about it; options for a proposed rule range from clearer warning labels to an outright ban. The agency first pondered such actions 30 years ago.
“People have died, it poses this cancer threat … and everybody knows it’s a bad chemical, and yet nobody does anything,” said Katy Wolf, director of the nonprofit Institute for Research and Technical Assistance in California. “It’s appalling and irresponsible.”
The author of the reform bill, Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said in a written statement that TSCA “has been broken from the very beginning. We're exposed to hundreds of chemicals in our daily lives in countless ways – from flame retardants in the dust from your sofas to formaldehyde in non-iron shirts, and from the non-stick coating on your frying pans to volatile organic compounds given off from laser printers. Some of these chemicals are known to cause cancer or serious health problems, yet there has never been a cop on the beat keeping us safe.”
Now the EPA will be that cop. The quality of its policing remains to be seen.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/05/27/19735/commentary-update-toxic-substances-control-act-worthy-step-thats-long-overdue
-
PCB, Cancer Link Results in $46.5 Million Monsanto Verdict
May 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Brown
A St. Louis jury hit Monsanto Co. with a $46.5 million verdict May 25 on behalf of three plaintiffs who claimed that they developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma as a result of eating food that contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Walker v. Monsanto Co., Mo. Cir. Ct., No. 1122-CC09621, 5/25/16).
The verdict appears to be the first yet awarded against Monsanto in a lawsuit asserting that non-Hodgkins lymphoma is caused by exposure to PCBs (89 DEN A-9, 5/9/16).
Included in the verdict was $17.5 million in actual damages and $29 million in punitive damages against Monsanto, Solutia Inc., Pharmacia Corp., and Pfizer Inc., each of which was related to the earlier PCB-manufacturing version of Monsanto through a web of mergers and spinoffs that took place between 1997 and 2003.
The plaintiffs were Richard Reinhold, who died of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and William Luce and Clara Dunem, each of whom suffers from the disease. The jury awarded Reinhold's wife $10 million in actual damages, Luce, $3. 5 million in actual damages and Dunem, $4 million in actual damages. The jury also awarded Luce and Dunem nearly $14.5 million each in punitive damages. Reinhold's case was tried under Michigan law, which does not allow for punitive damages.
Monsanto: Evidence Doesn't Support Verdict
Monsanto said in a statement that it would appeal and that the verdict is not supported by the scientific evidence.
“Previous juries in four straight similar trials (three in Los Angeles County and one in St. Louis County) rejected similar claims by attorneys that those plaintiffs contracted non-Hodgkins lymphoma as a result of eating food containing PCBs,” the statement said. “The evidence simply does not support today's verdict, including the fact that scientists say more than 90 percent of non-Hodgkins lymphoma cases have no known cause.”
An attorney for the plaintiffs told Bloomberg BNA that it would likely be the first lawsuit of many against Monsanto and three other companies, the successors to Monsanto Chemical Co., which dominated the production and sale of PCBs before they were banned by Congress in 1977.
Steven Kherkher, a partner with Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP in Houston, who represented the plaintiffs, told Bloomberg BNA May 26 that the verdict was supported by the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence, which includes general population studies, studies of worker cohorts and individual case studies. The plaintiffs’ case also was strongly supported by a 2013 report of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which concluded that PCBs were a cause of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, he said.
Key Testimony from Scientists
A key factor in the trial was the testimony of two scientists who had contributed to the IARC report, Kherkher said.
“I've had two previous trials where we introduced the report, but Monsanto was able to take it out of context and distort it to the jury,” he said. “We had a hung jury in one of those, and we lost the other. But this time, we had the scientists themselves who were able to say, ‘This is what we wrote, and this is what it meant.’ That made all the difference.”
Kherker also said that the evidence of Monsanto's negligence was overwhelming.
“They just didn't do what an ordinarily prudent person would do back in the 1930s and ‘40s and ‘50s, when they made this indestructible chemical and used it, not just in industrial contexts, but in the food supply, in food wrapping and chewing gum and cooking oil, and in paints and adhesives and caulk that is found around our homes,” he said. “The company had an obligation to do long term testing, but they didn't do it, and when they found out about that rats and mice were getting tumors in tests, they manipulated the data and covered it up.”
Kherker said he represents more than 1,000 people with similar claims against Monsanto. His next trial in St. Louis, which will include four plaintiffs, is set for Sept. 12, and another is set for Oct. 31.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90474622&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90474622&jd=90474622
-
Monsanto Ordered to Pay $46.5M in PCB Case
May 26, 2016 | E&E News PM
Monsanto Co. has been ordered by a St. Louis jury to pay $17.5 million in damages to three plaintiffs, along with $29 million in punitive damages.
The award, decided in a 10-2 verdict yesterday, came at the conclusion of a monthlong trial in the St. Louis Circuit Court over the company's alleged negligence in the production of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which plaintiffs said caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
"I think it goes to show that large companies can put stuff out there that's harmful, and they can do it for a long time," said juror Ashley Enochs, 24. "But that justice is going to be served, whether it's a year after the products are put out or, in this case, 80 years."
The lawsuit alleged that Monsanto knew about the hazards of PCBs decades ago yet chose to lie to the public that they were safe. The compounds can still be detected in rivers, streams and some food.
"This is the future," said the plaintiffs' lawyer, Steven Kherkher. "People don't know that PCBs cause cancer and that Monsanto has been suppressing" it.
Monsanto said in a statement, "We have deep sympathy for the plaintiffs but we are disappointed by the jury's decision and plan to immediately appeal today's ruling" (Joel Currier, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 26). -- CB
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/05/26/stories/1060037969
-
Republicans to Reevaluate After Energy, Water Bill Fails
May 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nancy Ognanovich and Jonathan Nicholson
House and Senate Republican leaders signaled they will reevaluate their plans to move all 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2017 through the chambers this summer after the popular energy and water spending measure (H.R. 5055) failed on the eve of the Memorial Day recess.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said after the bill attracted only 112 votes for approval on the floor that he and other lawmakers will meet after Congress returns in early June to assess the next steps on that bill and 10 others that have yet to advance to the floor.
“What we have to do when we return is get with our members and figure out how best we can move forward to have a full functioning appropriations process,” Ryan told reporters after the energy and water bill failed on a 112-305 vote. “Obviously, we want to pass individual bills. We think that's in the best interest of the institution, of Congress, of exercising the power of the purse. When we get back, we will sit down with our members and have a family discussion about how best to proceed, so that the appropriations process cannot be sabotaged and derailed.”
The $37.4 billion energy and water spending bill would have appropriated $30 billion for the Energy Department, $6 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and $1.1 billion for the Department of Interior (see related story).
Blame Game
Ryan said the demise of the bill was caused by Democrats, who succeeded in adding an amendment that would bar federal contractors from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. But Democrats charged that Republicans sunk the measure when they refused to vote for any measure with a gay rights provision. On final passage, 130 Republicans joined 175 Democrats in opposing the bill, while 106 Republicans and six Democrats voted in favor.
But other developments signaled new problems for the plans made by Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) move the full set of bills by the July 15 target for starting a seven-week recess.
Among other things, the House quietly removed the annual Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill from the Senate-passed “minibus” before it undertook moves to conference on the annual Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill that is the vehicle for a Zika supplemental.
Even before the demise of the energy and water bill, McConnell struck a cautious tone on the Senate floor, saying “it won't be easy” to get the appropriations process back on track. “But we're committed to doing all we can.”
LGBT Latest Controversy
The threat to the energy and water bill, as well as others, was hinted at recently when Democrats said they would try to add amendments to ensure the implementation of President Barack Obama's executive order banning anti-LGBT discrimination by federal contractors.
Democrats first proposed the amendment after Republicans put language in the annual defense authorization bill to block implementation of the order.
“House Republicans' thirst to discriminate against the LGBT community is so strong that they are willing to vote down their own appropriations bill in order to prevent progress over bigotry,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said.
But Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, said the bill already was courting trouble when it came to the floor. Among the riders that Democrats opposed was one that allows guns to be carried on all Army Corps of Engineers lands and six riders related to California water policy that could generate a White House veto.
“ It was made much worse by the House's shameful adoption of discriminatory amendments,” Lowey said.
Ryan Light-Touch Approach Fails
Ryan said he is not ready to shut down the appropriations process but suggested that future spending bill debates may be more controlled in order to make the process more “workable.”
“Early on, I stood up here—you remember this, it was one of my first press conferences—and said that some bills might fail because we're not going to tightly control the process and predetermine the outcome of everything around here,” Ryan said. “Well, that's what happened here today.”
The House developments were at odds with the bipartisan flavor of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the $575 billion defense and $48.1 billion homeland security spending bills, both of which were approved on 30-0 votes and cleared for floor action beginning in June.
Democrats praised the bills developed by Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) for avoiding controversies and following last fall's bipartisan budget deal.
However, problems loom for those measures, with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warning that on the floor Democrats will oppose Republican efforts to add $18 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds in violation of the budget deal.
Meanwhile, the Senate's work appears to be eroded by House developments. The energy and water bill was passed by the Senate after three weeks' work, and the uncertain outlook in the House means no conference is likely to occur soon on the bill.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90474624&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90474624&jd=90474624
-
Lawmakers Not Ready to Give Up on Energy and Water Bill
May 27, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Senior appropriators are frustrated over the unexpected defeat of the House's energy and water spending yesterday, but they also believe there's a chance the measure will still make it to the president's desk.
The House rejected the $37.4 billion H.R. 5055 after two days of debate that had seemingly put it on a path to final passage.
But 130 Republicans, frustrated over a provision aimed at barring discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers by federal contractors, sided with all but six Democrats, who opposed spending levels and policy riders, to defeat the bill with almost no advance warning.
"I'm very disappointed that this bill could not clear the House today, but I remain dedicated to working this bill and all other appropriations bills through regular order," said House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.). "Today's result will not stop our process, but is merely a temporary pause."
Rogers sought to play up the measure's conservative bona fides, noting that 70 percent of its spending increases go toward nuclear programs vital to national security.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), ranking member on the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said she was "very disappointed" with the outcome because she believed House and Senate differences on the measure could be resolved.
She said LGBT provisions and proposals blocking administration policies, including the new Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule, do not belong on an infrastructure spending bill.
Advertisement
"I am hopeful that the sun will rise another day," said Feinstein.
Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who got strong bipartisan backing earlier this month for his chamber's version of the spending bill, which eschewed policy riders, said, "We are ready to go to conference whenever they are."
Republicans leaders have said they will take next week's recess to consider their options for continuing the appropriations process.
They sought to tamp down any talk that the defeat would bring an end to moving individual spending bills and lead to an omnibus funding package.
"When we come back, we will sit down with our members and have a family discussion about how best to proceed, so that the appropriations process cannot be sabotaged and derailed," Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said yesterday.
Ryan already has raised the issue of restricting the open amendment process that allows any member to propose changes or additions to the spending bill on the floor without notice.
Ryan floated the idea of returning to a previous practice, last used under a Democratic majority, when amendments were pre-printed in the Congressional Record to provide members with more notice.
Rogers too has signaled an interest in ending the open amendment process for spending bills, which the GOP adopted after it took back the House in 2011.Push to drop riders
Rank-and-file House Republicans seemed not fully aware of the LGBT provision that Democrats added on Wednesday evening. Many were already skeptical about the legislation.
Republican tweaks to the LGBT amendment failed to placate social conservatives. Outside groups were also pressuring fiscal hawks to turn their back on the legislation.
House Democratic appropriators were highly critical of the energy and water spending bill's demise. They too are not ruling out the bill returning to the floor, but are using developments to push the majority to strop anti-administration measures.
"This [defeat] puts billions of dollars of federal contracts in limbo for 2017 and beyond," said top appropriator Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio).
Kaptur said that included money "for dredging and port operations in America's cities, for navigation, for energy innovation and breakthrough technologies, for responsible management and modernization of our nuclear weapons, and long-delayed nuclear cleanup, for solutions for the drought-stricken West, for recovery from Houston's flooding."
Kaptur noted that the energy and water legislation usually passes with strong bipartisan majorities, and she chided House GOP leaders as "the gang who couldn't shoot straight."
Kaptur has said she believes the House and Senate could send a bill to the president if the GOP is willing to drop riders.
Appropriations ranking member Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) also criticized Republicans for adding "divisive and ideological" riders. And she too said Democrats would work with the GOP if spending bills contain "responsible funding levels" and reject "discriminatory riders."
Both sides said GOP leaders could revive the House bill by sending it back to the Rules Committee, stripping out offending provisions and adopting a new rule for floor debate.
But other lawmakers suggested the partisan flare-up might not be so easily resolved.
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) said "of course" when asked if he planned on continuing to propose his LGBT amendment to any fiscal 2017 spending bills on the floor.
He said he is only reacting to GOP efforts to limit discrimination protections for LGBT military contractors in the annual defense authorization bill.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, dismissed a question over whether GOP members might be hurt by opposing the LGBT provisions.
Instead, he questioned the motives of Democrats for helping derail the spending bill even with the LGBT provisions they called for.
Another Republican, Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, said the dispute was not about discrimination but Democrats "trying to shipwreck the appropriations process."
Mulvaney added that he and other conservatives had opposed the bill over funding levels well before the LGBT issue arose.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/27/stories/1060037974
-
Clean Power Plan ‘Regulatory Cram-Down,' Opponent Says
May 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Congressional proponents of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants should have pursued legislation rather than deferring to the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the industry, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said.
“Pass a bill. Let democracy decide whether the Clean Power Plan is right for America,” Pruitt told the House Science Committee's Environment Subcommittee during a May 26 hearing on the EPA's carbon dioxide standards. “But we didn't get democracy. We got a regulatory cram-down.”
Pruitt is one of the attorneys general leading the legal fight against the EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33), which sets carbon dioxide emissions limits on the existing fleet of fossil-fuel burning power plants. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear argument over the rule Sept. 27 (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, 5/15/16; 95 DEN A-12, 5/17/16).
The Clean Power Plan, which has been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is another example of the EPA overstepping state authority to regulate the power sector and oversee its own environment, Pruitt said.
“The EPA was never intended to be our nation's foremost environmental regulator,” he said.
Committee Republicans also hammered the rule as overly burdensome without providing appreciable environmental benefit.
“The president's power plan is nothing more than a power grab,” full Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said.
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), chairman of the subcommittee, called the Clean Power Plan “a war on the poor” because it will lead to increases in utility rates.
Stay Should Stop Work
The fact that the Supreme Court has stayed the rule before it has even been argued before an appellate court should indicate to the EPA that the Clean Power Plan is in legal jeopardy, opponents said.
“It's important to recognize the unprecedented step that took place here,” Pruitt said.
That stay should prompt the EPA to halt all work on the rule, including model trading rules meant to guide states as they develop compliance plans as well as the voluntary Clean Energy Incentive Program (RIN:2060-AS84), which rewards states for early investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency investments as preparation for Clean Power Plan compliance.
Though 14 states have asked the EPA for additional guidance on the incentive program, congressional Republicans have argued that work must stop as well due to the Supreme Court's stay order (94 DEN A-2, 5/16/16).
The rule has only been stayed and not enjoined and Brianne Gorod, chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, said there is “ample precedent” for the EPA continuing to work on the Clean Power Plan as long as the rule itself is not being implemented.
Gorod and the Constitutional Accountability Center represent several members of Congress who have intervened in the Clean Power Plan litigation in support of the EPA.
“I don't think it's right to conclude anything about the merits” of lawsuits challenging the Clean Power Plan just because the rule has been stayed, Gorod said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90474619&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90474619&jd=90474619
-
House Energy, Water Bill Fails After LGBT Measures Added
May 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
In a surprise move, the House defeated a $37.4 billion energy and water spending bill after amendments related to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights were added to the legislation.
The fiscal year 2017 spending bill (H.R. 5055) would have appropriated $30 billion for the Energy Department, $6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $1.1 billion for the Department of Interior. It already had been opposed by many congressional Democrats and the White House because of objections over cuts to renewable energy programs and policy riders blocking the Obama administration's Clean Water Rule (RIN:2040-AF30).
One hundred and thirty Republicans joined every Democrat save six in voting against the bill in a 112-305 vote after an Democratic amendment barring contractors paid with federal funds from discriminating against employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The amendment, by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney's (D-N.Y.), was passed late May 25 on a 223-195 vote. The House earlier had narrowly rejected it as an amendment to a separate bill last week amid Democrat chants of “shame” and accusations of vote switching.
Pressure from the Right
Conservative groups, such as the lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation, cited the amendment when it urged House members to oppose the spending bill, arguing it “threatens religious liberty and personal privacy for private institutions who may contract with the federal government.”
Also adopted to the bill was an amendment by Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-N.C.) designed to get lawmakers on record about North Carolina's new law restricting which bathrooms transgender people can use. The measure, which would prohibit funds from being used to revoke funding previously awarded to or within the state of North Carolina, was adopted by a vote of 227-192.
The underlying bill would have cut Energy Department funding for clean energy programs while boosting fossil fuel and nuclear programs.
“House Republicans' thirst to discriminate against the LGBT community is so strong that they are willing to vote down their own appropriations bill in order to prevent progress over bigotry,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement following the vote. “In turning against a far-reaching funding bill simply because it affirms protections for LGBT Americans, Republicans have once again lain bare the depths of their bigotry.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) meanwhile blamed Democrats for a “sabotage of the appropriations process.”
Other Spending Bills in Question
“The fact that the author of the amendments that prevailed then turned around and voted against the bill containing his amendment, tells us they're trying to stop the appropriations process in its tracks,” Ryan said, according to a transcript of his weekly press conference.
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement he was “disappointed” with the outcome of the energy and water bill vote, but vowed to move “all other appropriations bills through regular order.”
“Today's result will not stop our process, but is merely a temporary pause,” Rogers said.
However, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said she doesn't see how Republicans will be able to move any more spending bills on the floor. “If they're going to continue to operate in this way and kowtow to the right wing of their membership it looks like we can't proceed on the floor in regular order,” she said.
The energy and water bill, which was approved by the House Appropriations Committee by voice vote April 19, also included funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste respiratory that was opposed by the Obama administration. In addition, it has language that would prohibit any changes to the definition of “fill material” and “discharge of fill material” for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, a move supported by organizations representing mining companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. and Alpha Natural Resources Inc. (76 DEN A-18, 4/20/16).
“Congressional Republicans have now scuttled must-pass legislation to fund vital energy and water programs because they object to fundamental protections for the LGBT community,” Sierra Club's Legislative Director Melinda Pierce said in a statement. “Shameful.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90474634&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90474634&jd=90474634
-
LGBT Fight Sinks House Spending Bill
May 26, 2016 | Politico
By Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan
House conservatives on Thursday blocked passage of a relatively uncontroversial energy and water spending measure after Democrats attached an amendment that would bar federal contractors from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
The appropriations bill failed 305-112, with a majority of Republicans opposed because of the gay rights provision, which would have the effect of enacting into law a 2014 executive order by President Barack Obama. Democrats also heavily voted against it over objections to other GOP-sponsored add-ons, including one related to immigration.
Story Continued Below
The death of an appropriations bill on the House floor underscores the challenges ahead for Speaker Paul Ryan if he wants to continue his commitment to so-called regular order, a process under which lawmakers have more say in what's voted on. After the bill failed Thursday, the Wisconsin Republican would not rule out changes to the "open" amendment process for spending bills that allows members to offer any relevant amendments — even poison pills that could kill the bill or divide the majority.
“[W]hat we will have to do when we return is get with our members and figure out how best to move forward to have a full functioning appropriations process,” Ryan said, re-emphasizing his longstanding commitment to regular order. "When I became speaker one of the commitments I made to our members was to open up this process. That means ... more amendments from both sides of the aisle. It means fewer predetermined outcomes and, yes, more unpredictability. … Early on I stood up here … and said some bills might fail because we’re not going to tightly control the process."
Ryan blamed Democrats for the bill's failure, though most of his own party turned against the measure, too.
"What we learned today is that the Democrats were not looking to advance an issue but to sabotage the appropriations process," he said. "The mere fact that they passed their amendments, then voted against the bill containing their amendments, proves this point."
The breakdown of the appropriations process started earlier in the day when Rep. Rick Allen (R-Ga.) opened the weekly GOP conference meeting with a prayer about the LGBT issue, prior to the vote. He read a passage from the Bible and questioned whether members would violate their religious principles if they supported the bill.
Moderate Republicans were stunned by Allen's remarks, and some walked out of the meeting in protest, according to GOP lawmakers.
"A good number of members were furious," said one Republican, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. "There was some Scripture that was read and the like. ... Nothing good was going to happen to those that supported [the LGBT provision]. A good number of members were furious."
Allen's office did not respond to an email seeking comment.
A similar LGBT amendment caused disarray on the House floor last week when Democrats tried to attach it to a Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. Republicans had to hold the vote open for longer than usual and run a last-minute whip operation to get a half-dozen Republicans to switch their vote on the matter. They barely killed the amendment, and Democrats shouted “shame, shame, shame” as opponents twisted arms.
But when Democrats reintroduced the amendment on Wednesday night, Republicans accepted it because amendment sponsor Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) allowed Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) to add a line allowing for exceptions as “required by the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I of the Constitution."
Republicans believed that additional line would assure their conference that this was no poison pill.
But a number of Republicans stood up to inform leadership during conference that they could no longer support the bill because of the LGBT amendment, expressing concern over how the amendment came to be attached. The meeting was supposed to focus on mustering conservative support for Puerto Rico debt legislation, but the entire hourlong meeting centered on the appropriations process instead, according to members present.
“There’s a lot of members that are really conflicted because of the Maloney amendment last night,” said Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.). A separate source said he expressed concerns and spoke at the conference meeting alongside several members, including Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) and Ann Wagner (R-Mo.), both of whom voted against the bill.
Opponents argued that GOP leadership never should have allowed the amendment because a majority of Republicans oppose it.
"We've talked a lot about the 'majority of the majority,'" said Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.). "And what we saw was that the minority of the majority was dictating the way the conference was moving." Mullin was referring to members who backed the LGBT provision. He voted against the bill on final passage.
"But the difference on this vote was it wasn't about substance as much as it was about principle," Mullin added. "When you're talking about principle — and this was a principle vote, about a lot of people's faith and the way they believe — as a deputy whip, it's difficult for me to persuade somebody, and nor would I try to persuade somebody, when they're making a principle vote."
House Speaker Paul Ryan responded that this is the process dictated by regular order.
“‘You asked me for open rules, you asked me for regular order, and that’s what I’m doing,’” Ryan told Republicans, according to Salmon, who wound up voting for the bill. Salmon added: “And I agree.”
Bill Flores (R-Texas), who chairs the conservative Republican Study Committee, opposed the gay rights amendment on principle. But he said he backed the overall bill because he believed the LGBT language would eventually be dropped.
“I think the amendment is wrong. I think it tries to take the president’s non-statutory items and put it into statute, so I think it’s inappropriate,” he said. “But, that said, this amendment is not going anywhere. When we go to conference, it will be stripped out of there.”
The bill had more problems than just Maloney’s amendment. Several other changes siphoned off crucial Democratic support, including an amendment from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) that would bar federal money from being spent on a program that federal agencies use to calculate the “climate benefits” of regulations.
Another Republican amendment, from Diane Black (Tenn.), would bar federal spending for “sanctuary cities” that shield some undocumented immigrants from federal prosecution, while a Ken Buck (R-Colo.) proposal would have barred spending on new energy efficiency standards.
Before the vote, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), chairman of the Energy & Water appropriations subcommittee, pleaded with Democrats to rescue the bill.
“I look forward to seeing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who had some of their amendments adopted now voting for this bill,” he said on the House floor.
They didn't, of course.
Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, called it “absolutely astonishing” that Republicans would sink the bill because of anti-discrimination language. She predicted this was the end of this year’s appropriations process.
“It looks to me like we’re headed for a [continuing resolution] or an omnibus, but it doesn’t look like they’re going to be able to bring any bills to the floor,” she said.
House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said Republicans would continue to push through spending legislation, though he said he was disappointed Thursday's bill failed. He, like Ryan, cracked open the door to the possibility of rules changes for the amendment process: "We’ll adapt to the circumstances,” he said.
South Carolina Republican Mick Mulvaney, meanwhile, had some choice words for his own 40-some Republican colleagues who voted for the Maloney amendment, though he said he didn’t “blame” them per se. He thinks they were tricked by Democrats.
“I’m saying I hope they realize that the issue, which they took as a vote on principle — which I respect — had nothing to do with principle. If it was a vote on principle, the bill would’ve passed today with votes on the Democrat side voting for it,” he said. “It was a political move designed to shipwreck the appropriations process, and I just hope they look at it like that next time a similar amendment comes up.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/lgbt-fight-sinks-house-spending-bill-223606
-
White House Shifts Strategy on Spending Bills
May 27, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Wyl and Matthew Nussbaum
The White House is taking a stealth approach to the appropriations process this year. The Obama administration hasn’t been terribly vocal as Congress takes up the dozen annual measures to fund the government, but it’s been deeply engaged behind the scenes — coordinating closely with congressional Democrats and ready to pounce if it sees a threat to the president’s agenda.
The decision to step back publicly stands in marked contrast to last year, when the White House was constantly arguing to ease the harsh bite of the sequester’s spending cuts. The administration churned out studies, letters and blog posts hitting Republicans for slashing education, health care and infrastructure; President Barack Obama made high-profile pitches for a budget deal.
The campaign worked: A bipartisan agreement was reached last October that raised spending and established a budget framework for this year. Now the White House is trying to make sure it doesn’t fall apart.
The administration’s new approach was on display last month when it quickly rallied Senate Democrats into opposing an amendment from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) that would have undermined the Iran nuclear deal. A vote on the amendment had not yet even been scheduled, but Democrats immediately filibustered the bill at hand, a bipartisan measure to fund the Energy Department, to show they were prepared to bring the appropriations process to a halt.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest expressed satisfaction after the Senate later defeated the Cotton amendment, and dinged the freshman senator, who had sought to prevent the United States from buying so-called heavy water from Iran. “I’m confident that he couldn’t differentiate heavy water from sparkling water,” Earnest quipped.
Top administration officials are regularly in contact with key Democrats and staff on Capitol Hill. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan recently paid a visit to Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. House Democrats have received Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord and Patrick J. Murphy, undersecretary of the Army and a former House member, to discuss the defense budget.
“We consult with them on a regular basis,” said Mikulski, adding that they are in “absolute” agreement on their goals for this year’s appropriations bills. An aide to Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, also said her office is regularly in touch with OMB and that Democrats on both sides of Pennsylvania Ave. are singing from the same song sheet.
Democrats have proclaimed their demands so frequently that it’s practically a party mantra. The three legs of their appropriations stool: sticking to the overall spending level established last year in the deal inked by Obama and departing Speaker John Boehner; providing parity between defense and non-defense spending; and barring “poison pill” riders that make conservative policy changes.
None of those outcomes are guaranteed.
A majority of congressional Republicans voted against the Obama-Boehner agreement, which raised budget caps by $30 billion for fiscal 2017 to provide some breathing room for domestic and defense programs. Conservatives in the House continue to block Speaker Paul Ryan from passing a budget at that spending level — an embarrassing development for House GOP leadership, and a sign that abiding by the agreement isn’t a done deal.
House Republicans have also proposed defense authorization legislation to shift billions of dollars from the Overseas Contingency Operations war-funding account into the Pentagon’s base budget — a maneuver ultimately designed to boost defense spending. The administration has hit back hard against the GOP gambit.
“The proposal is to take money out of the wartime funding account in wartime. That’s objectionable on the face of it,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter said recently. Those comments and others like it from Carter have been very helpful to congressional Democrats as the debate unfolds, a senior House Democratic aide said.
The biggest fight may come on controversial policy riders, which were key sticking points on last year’s omnibus appropriations package. Top Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are already threatening to blow up the appropriations process at this early stage if the GOP tries to use spending bills to undermine Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul and significant EPA rules, among other prized Democratic accomplishments.
“The appropriations process is not the place to try to jam through ideological ‘poison pill’ riders and get them signed into law,” Schumer said on a conference call with reporters earlier this month. “Congressional Democrats won’t stand for it. The president won’t stand for it.”
Indeed, every OMB statement of administration policy on an appropriations bill has included a veto threat if it includes “problematic ideological provisions.” The statements also have urged Congress to pass spending measures “consistent with that [2015] agreement,” a point emphasized in comments by an OMB spokesperson.
The approach has been successful so far. Both the Senate and House are advancing appropriations bills that adhere to the total spending established in last year’s deal. And the three spending bills passed by the Senate have been free of controversial policy riders.
In the House, where Republicans are pushing bills that include conservative policy provisions, the appropriations season is in serious danger. A bill to fund energy and water programs was defeated handily on the House floor Thursday in a major embarrassment to GOP leaders. Many Republicans voted against the bill because a Democratic amendment was added to prevent LGBT discrimination; meanwhile, nearly every Democrat heard the administration’s veto threat and voted against the bill because of the conservative policies attached.
The administration is sure to aggressively defend its policies on any appropriations bill and what could be a catch-all omnibus measure to fund the government at the end of the year. For now, though, the White House is content to let the process play out, a step or two back from its bully pulpit.
“They clearly had very strong feelings last year about how the budget should work,” noted Sen.Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), an Appropriations Committee member. “But it was a different year, right?”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/05/white-house-shifts-strategy-on-spending-bills-116195
-
Donald Trump’s Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules
May 27, 2016 | The New York Times
By Ashley Parker and Coral Davenport
Donald J. Trump traveled Thursday to the heart of America’s oil and gas boom, where he called for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations while vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement,” the 2015 accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to curb climate change.
Laying out his positions on energy and the environment at an oil industry conference in North Dakota, he vowed to rescind President Obama’s signature climate change rules and revive construction of the Keystone XLpipeline, which would bring petroleum from Canada’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.
It was the latest in a series of recent policy addresses, including on Israel and foreign policy, intended to position Mr. Trump, the real estate mogul and reality show star, as credible on substantive issues now that he is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
But experts remain skeptical of Mr. Trump’s command of the complexities of the global energy economy. And he made claims, such as a promise to restore jobs lost in coal mining, that essentially defy free-market forces.
“Many of his proposals thus far don’t seem to appreciate the complex forces that drive the energy system,” said Richard G. Newell, an energy economist at Duke University who has closely followed Mr. Trump’s remarks.
Mr. Trump’s decision to set his speech in North Dakota was politically strategic. He began the day fewer than 30 delegates shy of clinching the nomination, and on Thursday, he reached the required 1,237-delegate threshold with the help of unpledged delegates in the state who moved to support him.
Mr. Trump asked North Dakota’s Republican congressman, Kevin Cramer, to suggest energy policies before the speech.Continue reading the main story
A central question confronting the next president will be how to address climate change. Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly denied the established science that climate change is caused by humans, vowed in his speech to undo many of Mr. Obama’s initiatives.
He did not explicitly address the scientific legitimacy of human-caused climate change, but said, “We’re going to deal with real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we’ve been hearing about.”
Mr. Trump said that in his first 100 days in office, he would “rescind” Environmental Protection Agency regulations established under Mr. Obama to curb planet-warming emissions from coal-fired power plants.
“Regulations that shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and block the construction of new ones — how stupid is that?” Mr. Trump said.
However, the next president will not have the legal authority to unilaterally rescind the climate rules, which are now being litigated in federal courts. If, as is widely expected, the case goes to the Supreme Court, the justices, rather than the president, will determine its fate. But if elected, Mr. Trump could nominate a new Supreme Court justice to help strike down the rule.
Mr. Trump’s threats to unravel the Paris Agreement could carry more weight.
In his speech, he complained, inaccurately: “This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use on our land, in our country. No way.”
In fact, at the heart of the Paris Agreement are voluntary pledges put forward by the governments of over 190 nations, laying out plans to lower emissions. No government has control over the emissions-reduction plans of other governments.
Once the accord is ratified by 55 countries responsible for 55 percent of global emissions, it will enter into legal force, and any country wishing to withdraw would have to wait four years to do so. However, if the deal has not been ratified by January 2017, a new American president could withdraw immediately. For that reason, many countries, fearful that a President Trump would do just that, are racing to ratify the deal this year.
But there would be no legal consequence if the United States, the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas polluter, simply did not follow through with the Obama administration’s pledge to cut emissions up to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
In an even more potent threat, Mr. Trump declared that the United States would “stop all payment of U.S. tax dollars to global warming programs.”
“We’ve got big problems, folks, and we can’t be sending money all over the world,” he said. “We’re going to keep our money here and our jobs here and bring our jobs back.”
But developing nations, including India, have made clear that their ability to cut emissions depends largely on financial help from other countries. And as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pledged that rich countries, including the United States, would commit $100 billion annually by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to the ravages of global warming. A clear signal that the United States would back down from its commitments to reduce emissions and provide financial assistance could undermine the political will in other countries, such as India and China, to take action.
Other elements of Mr. Trump’s energy proposals appear less viable. As coal mining jobs have declined, Mr. Trump has vowed to fully restore their numbers.
“We’re going to bring back the coal industry, save the coal industry,” he said. “I love those people.”
It is unclear how Mr. Trump could restore lost jobs in the coal industry. As domestic coal demand has declined, companies have laid off thousands of miners. But economists say that shift is driven by market forces: The natural gasboom led power companies to buy cheaper gas rather than coal.
“Most analysts would say that coal is hurting because natural gas prices have collapsed,” said Robert McNally, the president of the Rapidan Group, an energy consulting firm, and a senior energy official in the George W. Bush administration. “Donald Trump would have to find a way to raise natural gas prices.”
Mr. Trump also repeatedly emphasized “energy independence” — the idea that the United States could isolate itself from global oil markets and cease importing fuels.
“Under my presidency, we will accomplish complete American energy independence,” he said. “We will become totally independent of the need to import energy from the oil cartel or any nation hostile to our interest.”
But experts say that such remarks display a basic ignorance of the workings of the global oil markets.
“Even if energy independence was achievable, it would not be desirable,” Mr. Newell, the Duke University energy economist, wrote in an email. “Our interests tend to be best served by getting each type of fuel we need from the least expensive source, be it domestic or imported. When domestic U.S. energy is globally competitive, like the recent oil and gas boom, our imports go down. But energy independence itself is one of the least useful energy policy goals — and is at times damaging.”
Mr. Trump’s speech, which he delivered with the help of teleprompters, drew a large, cheering crowd to the conference, packing an arena here with thousands of people.
Steve DeWacht, 45, a district manager at Colter Energy, a company in the fracking industry, said he liked what he knew of Mr. Trump’s energy policy.
“I’m hoping he’s going to support the oil industry, open up some new plays — in Pennsylvania, maybe — keep Texas going and help out in North Dakota,” he said. “He’s got to get us off the OPEC train and help us make our own train.”
Bob Morman, 60, who works for Montana-Dakota Utilities on the natural gas side, said he was supporting Mr. Trump, but knew little about his energy plans and had come to learn more.
“I want to see what his stance is on oil fracking, oil renewables and coal,” he said. “I would like to see coal be part of the energy mix.”
Correction: May 26, 2016An earlier version of this article misstated the amount of money Hillary Clinton has said rich countries will commit to help poor countries adapt to global warming. It is $100 billion, not $100 million.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy.html?_r=0
-
CASAC Members Urge EPA To Broaden Scope Of Next PM NAAQS Review
May 26, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Members of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) particulate matter review panel are urging EPA to consider a wider range of issues and data than proposed so far when it reviews the current national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and larger coarse particulate matter (PM10).
The panel held a May 23 call to consider EPA's draft Integrated Review Plan (IRP) for the forthcoming NAAQS review. The IRP is a planning document that maps out EPA's review strategy, and can be followed by an optional risk and exposure review, and then a mandatory integrated science assessment (ISA) analyzing the science available since the last review, leading to a policy options outlining potential revisions to the standards.
EPA in 2012 tightened its primary (health-based) annual NAAQS for PM2.5 from the prior 1997 level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 12 ug/m3, but retained the 150 ug/m3 PM10 standard, averaged over 24 hours, without revision. The draft IRP says EPA intends to complete its review by 2021 -- four years beyond the Clean Air Act's mandated five-year review cycle, which requires the agency to complete the review by 2017.
The American Lung Association in written testimony for the hearing seized on EPA's delay, saying, “We are concerned that the proposed schedule has the review ending in 2021, nearly a decade after the last extended review ended and almost four years longer than the five-year timetable required by the Clean Air Act.”
CASAC offers input on EPA's NAAQS for PM and five other criteria pollutants, though the committee is facing increasing allegations of bias from some industry groups, states, and GOP lawmakers.
For example, in a lawsuit filed May 13 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, conservative groups Energy and Environment Legal Institute and Western States Trucking Association challenge EPA's Nov. 17 appointment of members to the CASAC PM review panel. The groups claim the panel is unlawfully constituted and is not independent of EPA, as required by statute.
The groups had asked the court to halt the May 23 CASAC PM panel meeting from taking place, but withdrew that motion May 25 after noting the call had gone ahead.
CASAC Meeting
During the meeting, some CASAC panelists suggested that in the upcoming review, EPA should expand its focus from PM exposures and effects in 15 cities examined previously to include more of the country, including rural areas. “EPA should give serious consideration to expanding the geographic scope of the health risk assessment to the entire continental U.S.,” says panelist Patrick Kinney in written comments submitted to EPA.
Panelist Terry Gordon said in written comments on the draft IRP that there “did seem to be a large emphasis on urban data and risk considerations to the point of the rural risks being lost or at least very low in priority.”
Both air quality monitoring and computer modeling have developed since the last review, and new methods such as satellite remote sensing are adding to the body of knowledge, panelists said. The “field has moved a lot since the last time this was done” in the 2009 ISA, said panelist Lianne Sheppard.
EPA staff on the call underscored the agency's intent to focus the review on health effects for which evidence was less certain in 2009, a strategy panelists appeared to broadly agree with.
Staff also said they intended to focus on studies looking at pollutant concentrations actually found in the environment, on relevant routes of exposure, and on the role played in health effects by ultrafine particles, or those smaller than 100 nanometers in size.
Julie Goodman of consultancy Gradient, funded by the American Petroleum Institute, in her written testimony to the panel meeting called for a more careful consideration of scientific uncertainties in the review, and also criticized EPA's “causal framework,” which includes a category for health effects for which the evidence is “suggestive” of a causal relationship with PM, but not conclusive.
“CASAC should reevaluate U.S. EPA's 'suggestive' category. At present, almost any large body of evidence could be placed into this category, since U.S. EPA notes that a large database of 'varying quality' could be judged to be 'generally supportive,' yet it provides no direction for determining how a body of evidence that is 'not entirely consistent' would qualify as 'suggestive' as opposed to 'inadequate.'”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/casac-members-urge-epa-broaden-scope-next-pm-naaqs-review
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested