Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 4204.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment No. 4204: Sessions, Rubio, Shelby, Moran, Warren, Peters, and Menendez.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have been here before. The same language that is in the base bill right now was in a year ago. On the floor last year, we passed the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment, requiring a Secretary of Defense report on commissary benefits. It passed by unanimous consent with 25 bipartisan sponsors and cosponsors, and it was supported by 41 outside organizations and by the administration. It required a study on the impact of privatization of commissaries on military families before a pilot program on privatizing could be implemented that was to look at modifications to the commissary system. I am sending the language now, which I will get to in a minute. It required a Comptroller General assessment of the plan no later than 120 days after submittal of the report. Here is the situation. The House passed the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, and it doesn't include privatization language. The Senate version has the same language as last year, which would authorize a pilot program to privatize five commissaries on five major military bases. But only yesterday, we received the report from the Secretary of Defense. We have not yet received the Comptroller General's review. Congress asked for this study because of concerns about the impact that privatization could have on our servicemembers and the commissary benefit. It seems as if we are taking away benefits. We are working these guys and gals harder than we ever have before, and this is one very significant benefit that is there. Senator Mikulski and I, along with our now 38 cosponsors--last year it was 25--and with the support of 42 outside organizations are offering a simple amendment that strikes the privatization pilot program, allowing Congress to receive and vet the Secretary of Defense report and the valuation of the Comptroller. This is not the first time this was done. The January 2015 report by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission determined that commissaries were worth preserving, and they did not recommend privatization. That report took place almost 2 years ago. When surveyed in 2014, 95 percent of the military members were using commissaries and gave them a 91-percent satisfaction rate. According to the Military Officers Association of America, the average family of four who shops exclusively at commissaries sees a savings of somewhere between 30 percent to 40 percent. Mr. President, I have six testimonials from military members about using commissaries that I wish to enter into the Record. They said the following: ``Our family needs the commissary! We wouldn't be able to afford a decent amount of groceries for our family if we had to shop off post!'' ``My husband is currently active duty AF, and I drive 30 one way just to be able to shop at the commissary. We are stationed at a base in the middle of nowhere and if I were to shop at our local store, I would pay nearly twice as much. And, I know that a vast majority of those stationed where we are use the commissary for the same reason. And please consider those stationed overseas and in other rural locations. If the commissaries were privatized, they could increase the prices and without competition, our grocery bill would be significantly higher.'' ``Whether I am in the states or overseas I use my benefits of lower food cost. I've been in the military for 22 years, I've seen a lot of changes. But this should not be one. If anyone from your office wants more information feel free to contact me.'' ``While there are some items that may be found at a lower individual price on the economy the total combined savings remains constant.'' ``When I went out in town and we tried to get the same amount, we got about half of the groceries that we could afford at the Commissary.'' ``If you want to keep an all-volunteer military, you must keep the benefits that are in place as of today and for the future. All that are serving and have served depend on the commissary and exchange for low-cost goods. If the Commission does not recommend a pay increase, all benefits are extremely needed.'' Commissaries are required to operate in remote areas. A lot of these objections are from commissaries in remote areas where people don't have any other place to actually make their purchases. At a time when thousands of junior servicemembers and their families use food stamps, we should not be making changes that could increase costs at the checkout line. The commissary benefit encourages people to reenlist, preserving a well-trained, dedicated military. It ensures that training investments are well spent, saving the expense of retraining the majority of the force every few years. The commissary savings and proximity and the consistency of the commissaries also encourage spouses, whose opinions may be a deciding factor in reenlistment decisions. I know this is true. Just last Friday I was at Altus Air Force Base. I went into the commissary and talked to someone who was reconsidering. It was the wife of a flyer. Right now one of the biggest problems we have in the Air Force is the pilot shortage. They said that would be a major determining the factor. So it is the right thing to do. It also provides jobs for families of servicemen. Sixty percent of the commissary employees are military related. The greatest benefit is that their jobs are transferable. If they are transferred from one place to another, they are already trained and ready to go. As I said, the Department of Defense delivered their report only yesterday and no one has had a chance to really go over it. The mandated GAO review of this plan is now under way. Of course, it could be up to 120 days after this for the next step to become completed. The report supports section 661 of the Senate bill regarding optimization of operations consistent with business practices, but it doesn't affect 662. That is the section where we had the pilot program. We have addressed this before, but the report also acknowledges that privatization would not be able to replicate the range of benefits, the level of savings, and geographic reach provided by DeCA while achieving budget neutrality. It states that the Department of Defense--and I am talking about the report from the Department of Defense--is continuing its due diligence on privatization by assessing the privatization-involved portions. They are already doing that right now. In fact, some things have already been privatized, such as the delis, the bakeries. They have been privatized already in those areas and that is actually working. So privatizing military commissaries before having a full assessment of the costs and benefits is not the responsible thing to do. We owe that to our members. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Members who are cosponsors and the organizations that are supporting the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment No. 4204.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, I be recognized for my remarks for 8 minutes before the recess.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am prepared to make a unanimous consent request. I don't have the wording yet, but I will momentarily, so I will not take the floor at this time.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a year ago, when we were considering this same bill, the language of the bill that was presented to us had a pilot program that would temporarily look at privatizing five commissaries. We elected not to do that. We had an amendment at that time with 25 cosponsors, and it was not necessary to actually have a rollcall vote, and it overwhelmingly was passed that we would not do that until we had a study of DOD with an assessment by GAO on privatization. That has not happened yet. The initial report came out from GAO and it is negative on having the privatization language at this point. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have 40 cosponsors. I advise each Senator to look at the cosponsors before voting on this. However, I would have no objection to a voice vote.

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator would yield, I would appreciate that very much. We are talking about the TSCA bill, and it is one that is almost a must-pass type of bill. We have support on both sides--I think almost total support. If we could have another 10 minutes to talk to a couple of people, I would like to make that motion. If you could, go ahead and talk about the Defense bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. For the information of Senators, this will allow us to pass this bill tonight by voice vote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for that 45 minutes of debate, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, be recognized for 10 minutes; followed by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter; and then go back and forth in 5-minute increments.

Mr. INHOFE. That is all the time remaining; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. I save one of the best for last, and that is Alex Herrgott. I neglected to mention him.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the message to accompany H.R. 2576. The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2576) entitled ``An Act to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act, and for other purposes.'' with an amendment to the Senate amendment. Motion to Concur

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment. I ask unanimous consent that there now be 45 minutes of debate on the motion, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the motion to concur.

Mr. INHOFE. I believe that adds up to our 45 minutes, and I will just not speak until after the vote.

Mr. INHOFE. I will amend my unanimous consent request.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, we do have this down with five people.

Mr. INHOFE. That is right. I would also say that I will forgo my remarks in order to give them more time until after the vote.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, that is already a unanimous consent.

Mr. INHOFE. Senator Vitter and I rise today to discuss a few provisions in the bill with the desire of clarifying what the Congressional intent was behind specific provisions of the legislation. Senator Vitter, I would like to start with a question to you on the purpose of the term ``conditions of use'' and how that term is supposed to be applied by EPA in risk evaluations?

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. That response raised an interesting follow up question I would like to ask. If EPA's final Section 6(a) risk management rule includes a restriction or prohibition on some of the conditions of use identified in EPA's scope of the risk evaluation, but not all of them, is it final agency action as to those other conditions of use?

Mr. INHOFE. It is clear that the compromise directs EPA to systematically evaluate more chemicals than ever before. To help the Agency meet that objective, the compromise does two things. First, EPA can issue a test rule or order if it finds that a chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. In this case, an EPA order would be a final agency action subject to judicial review. EPA would be well-advised to consider the practice of issuing a `statement of need' similar to that required under section 4(a)(3) when using this authority. The section also provides EPA discretionary authority to require testing--by rule, order or consent agreement--when EPA determines that new information is necessary to review a pre-manufacture notice under section 5, to conduct a risk evaluation under section 6, or to implement rules or orders under those sections. The compromise also recognizes that EPA may need new information to prioritize a chemical substance for review, to assess certain exports, and at the request of another federal agency. To use this discretionary order authority, EPA must issue a `statement of need' that explains the need for new testing/exposure information. It must describe how available information has informed the decision to require new information, whether vertebrate animal testing is needed, and why an order is preferred to a rule. Section 4 of the compromise also requires EPA to use `tiered' screening and testing processes. This means EPA must require less expensive, less complex screening tests to determine whether higher level testing is required. This is an efficient approach to testing chemicals that is based on EPA experience in other testing programs Tiered testing will also help assure that EPA is meeting the objective to minimize animal testing that is set out in the compromise. Finally, section 4 prohibits the creation of a `minimum information requirement' for the prioritization of chemicals. That is a very important provision that should be applied to any and all testing by the Agency regardless of which authority it uses. Senator Vitter, in addition to new testing authorities the bill also makes changes to TSCA in the new chemicals program under section 5 which has been largely viewed as one of the major strengths of existing law. It has been credited with spurring innovation in chemistry used for new products and technologies throughout the value chain. The industry we're regulating in TSCA is highly innovative: 17 percent of all US patents are chemistry or chemistry related. Clearly Congress has an interest in preserving the economic engine that is the business of U.S. chemistry, while ensuring that EPA appropriately reviews new chemical substances and significant new uses. How does the compromise balance these interests?

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you very much for that explanation, Senator Vitter. Mercury-Specific Provisions in the bill

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. These provision are very important to many major domestic producers including manufacturers of products like glass, steel, cement, along with domestic energy producers across the country. The chemical nomenclature provision in section 8 of the compromise addresses several issues critical to the efficient functioning of the new chemical regulatory framework. For the purposes of the TSCA Inventory, a single, defined molecule is simple to name. For example, ethanol is a Class 1 chemical on the TSCA Inventory. Its identity does not depend on how it is made. Since one ethanol is chemically the same as another ethanol, a new producer of ethanol can use the existing ethanol chemical listed on the TSCA Inventory. For other substances known as Class 2 chemicals, nomenclature is more complex. For those substances, the name of the substance typically includes either--or both--The source material and the process used to make it. The compromise requires EPA to maintain the Class 2 nomenclature system, as well as certain nomenclature conventions in widespread use since the early days of TSCA. The compromise also directs EPA to continue to recognize the individual members of categories of chemical substances as being on the TSCA inventory. The individual members of these categories are defined in inventory descriptions developed by EPA. In addition, the compromise permits manufacturers or processors to request that EPA recognize a chemical substance currently identified on the TSCA Inventory under multiple nomenclatures as `equivalents.' Importantly, the equivalency provision relates only to chemical substances that are already on the TSCA Inventory. Although the equivalency provision specifically references substances that have Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers, EPA could usefully apply an equivalency approach to substances on the Inventory that do not have CAS numbers as well, such as for naturally-occurring substances. Now, Senator Vitter, once a chemical is on the inventory, information about the substance that is provided to EPA often contains sensitive proprietary elements that need protecting. There has been a significant debate in recent years regarding the protection from public disclosure of a confidential chemical identity provided in a health and safety study under TSCA section 14(b). Although new section 14(b) is substantially similar to the existing statute, what is the intent behind the additional language related to formulas?