Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a piece of legislation that has been in place and in law for 50 years, as Senator Merkley knows. It has been in place for 50 years, and it has expired. There is overwhelming support for this. A number of us have signed letters. Senator Burr, who is here, I know has been a leader in terms of working on the Republican side. We have a huge amount of support, but a small little group is objecting to this moving forward. I say to Senator Merkley, this is showing the dysfunction that here we have a bill and the leadership cannot get the bill on to the floor. I wanted to ask the Senator in terms of his State. I know in my State people love their parks. They love the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I think the same is true in Oregon; isn't it? This is something that we shouldn't have let lapse, and we have to put it in place.

Mr. UDALL. I say to Senator Merkley, one of the things we face here is that because the Land and Water Conservation Fund has not been reauthorized, there are Senators who are trying to attach this to other pieces of legislation. You and I have worked very well on the Toxic Substances Control Act, which now has over 60 votes. This has really held down both pieces of legislation. The Land and Water Conservation Fund can't be reauthorized, and we can't pass the Toxic Substances Control Act, which has overwhelming support. We are in a situation where the leadership needs to step in and say: Both of these have huge support in the Senate--bipartisan support. Let's get a vote on them. Let's not continue to have this gridlock and dysfunction. Does the Senator see it that way in terms of how this is playing out on the floor right now?

Mr. UDALL. Yes.

Mr. UDALL. Please, Senator Lankford.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Senator Lankford, for that intervention. I think the important point here--and I know Senator Burr is here on the floor so I am going to make a unanimous consent request with regard to TSCA. But let me just say that I can't agree with the amendment that Senator Lankford has talked about. I know it is very controversial--the idea of taking money out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is going to the States for parks and to the Federal side for parks, and dedicating that to maintenance. That is something we should have done in budgets long ago, and the problem is we haven't had adequate budgets for our parks. So we have a backlog. Senator Merkley mentioned, in terms of TSCA, the health and safety of children. There is one person I want to talk about, a woman by the name of Dominique Browning. She works with an organization called Moms Clean Air Force. She worries about her kids and the toys and the products they use. She herself survived kidney cancer. When she asked her doctor what caused the kidney cancer, he said: It's one of those environmental ones. Who knows? We're full of chemicals. This is about people such as Dominique Browning, who want to see a cop on the beat who is going to do something about chemicals. I think this dysfunction, this inability to deal with two very popular bills, is something on which we need the leadership to step in. The leadership has the control of the floor and is able to move forward. So I rise today in support of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Last week, the Senate missed an opportunity to move forward on this bill and to send it to conference with the House. I was disappointed, but, I know that we can still get this done. And for the protection of American families we must get this done. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 is supposed to protect us. It doesn't. There are over 84,000 known chemicals and hundreds of new ones every year. Only five have been banned by the EPA. Only five out of 84,000. TSCA is broken. We all know this. It fails to protect families. It fails to provide confidence in consumer products. We have a chance to change that. And that is what our bill will do. That is why 60 Senators from both sides of the aisle support this critical reform. For decades now, the risks are there, the dangers are there, but, there is no cop on the beat. American families are waiting for real protection. Unfortunately, last week, because of Senate dysfunction, we asked them to wait a little longer. They have waited too long already, because this is about our health and safety. This is about our children and grandchildren. This is about people like Dominique Browning, who works with Moms Clean Air Force, who worries about her kids, and the toys and products they use every day. She herself survived kidney cancer. When she asked her doctor what caused her kidney cancer, he said: ``It's one of those environmental ones. Who knows? We're full of chemicals.'' This is about people like Lisa Huguenin. Lisa is a Ph.D. scientist who has done work on chemical exposure at Princeton and Rutgers and at the State and Federal level. But she is a mother first. Her 13-year-old son, Harrison, was born with autism and auto-immune deficiencies. Five years ago, Lisa testified before Senator Lautenberg's subcommittee on the need for reform. She is eager to see TSCA reform pass the Senate and be signed into law. The time for TSCA reform is now, and it may not come again for many years. It has passed the House. It is ready to move through the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 121, S. 697, a bill to reauthorize and modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act; that the only amendment in order be a substitute amendment to be offered by Senator Inhofe; that there be up to 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on adoption of the Inhofe amendment; that upon disposition of the substitute amendment, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, we have hit a roadblock, not because of the substance, but because of a disagreement over a completely unrelated bill, the re-authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. A bill that I, along with a majority of Senators, strongly support. I respect my colleague, Senator Burr. He is a true leader on LWCF. It never should have expired. The reauthorization has strong, bipartisan support. Fifty-three Senators signed a letter led by Senator Burr recently, and I am confident there are over 60 supporters. I believe that we will reauthorize and continue to fund LWCF. As the ranking Democrat on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, that is an extremely high priority for me and it is extremely important to the people of my State. I want to work with Senator Burr. But, LWCF is being blocked by a small minority from Senator Burr's own party. We have to fight that, and we will. But, TSCA reform should not be held up by demands for a vote on unrelated LWCF legislation. Groups like the National Wildlife Federation and others who support LWCF reauthorization have called to decouple the two. Other members of the LWCF coalition have told me this as well. The safety of American families should not be held hostage to the LWCF because the result is all too obvious. The safety of our children and grandchildren is put at risk each and every day that we delay TSCA reform. Is it any wonder the American people look at the Senate with dismay and confusion? At times like this I share their frustration. Again, I respect Senator Burr. He is a cosponsor of our bill. And I know he does not want a dysfunctional Senate. He fought hard to get the Senate to work out its differences on his cyber security legislation. The Senate passed that bill this week. The Lautenberg Act deserves the same push. We need cooperation, not ultimatums. I will keep doing what I can to continue the conversation and move forward. We cannot sacrifice the health of infants and pregnant women, of the elderly and our most vulnerable, to Washington gridlock and obstruction. It has been a long road. This is a balanced bill and a bipartisan bill. One that Republicans, Democrats, industry, and public health groups can all support. This is historic and urgently needed reform. So, we won't give up. We will keep going. We aren't just Senators. Many of us are also parents and grandparents. We know how important this is. This is about the health and safety of our families too, and I believe we can do this. Our former colleague, Senator Lautenberg, who began this effort years ago, believed we could as well. TSCA reform was his last legislative effort, and he believed it would save more lives than anything he had done. We are proud to have the support of his widow, Bonnie. I want to repeat what Bonnie said so eloquently at the EPW hearing earlier this year. She said: This cause is urgent, because we are living in a toxic world. Chemicals are rampant in the fabrics we and our children sleep in and wear, the rugs and products in our homes and in the larger environment we live in. How many family members and friends have we lost to cancer? We deserve a system that requires screening of all chemicals to see if they cause cancer or other health problems. How many more people must we lose before we realize that having protections in just a few states isn't good enough? We need a federal program that protects every person in this country. Bonnie Lautenberg is right. How long must American families wait? They have waited long enough. They should not keep waiting because of a dysfunctional Senate. Moms like Dominique and Lisa are watching and waiting and asking. What are we doing to protect their children, and the children of New Mexico, New Jersey, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and every other State. Reform is 40 years overdue. So, one way or another, we will pass this bill in the Senate. We will resolve our differences with the House, and this critical reform will go to the President's desk. Senator Merkley, we are here at this point where we saw--and we have now been joined by Senator Markey also, and if Senator Markey wishes to participate in this colloquy, I would ask consent to do that. We are at a point where we have two very popular pieces of legislation that have enough votes to get them on the floor and to deal with a filibuster, and we don't have the ability to do that. So that is where we are. It is time for this place to abandon dysfunction and abandon the kind of gridlock we see and get these bills on the floor. As Senator Merkley said, if people have an objection or an amendment like the Senator from Oklahoma, they can come down and offer it. I don't know what my friend's thoughts are, but Senator Markey is here and I am sure is willing to speak on this issue also.

Mr. UDALL. I thank my friend.

Mr. UDALL. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, what just happened here, just so we can allow the American people to understand, was the really honest, sincere effort on two bills that have overwhelming support--the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Frank Lautenberg 21st Century Chemical Safety Act--we wanted to get these on the floor so that we can have debate and have amendments. It is exactly what just happened in the last week and part of this week on the cyber security bill. We got a bill on the floor, there were amendments, we invoked cloture, and then we passed the bill at the end of the day. That is what we are trying to do. Individual Senators don't have control of the floor. They do have the ability to come to the floor and ask to put bills on the floor, and that is what happened here. Senator Merkley showed up and asked to put the Land and Water Conservation Fund bill on the floor, with specific outlines, and it was objected to. I asked to put the Frank Lautenberg 21st Century Chemical Safety Act on the floor, and it was objected to. That is the only power we have. The leadership has the ability to control the floor, and that is why we are on the floor speaking about this. So this was in no way a charade; this was an honest, sincere effort to try to do everything we can to make sure that everything is transparent here in terms of who is objecting, who doesn't want things to move forward, and who is for moving forward on two very popular bills. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2117, which is a 60-day extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Mr. UDALL. It is amendment No. 2717. The Senator is correct.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2717, as modified, which is a 1-year extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I can't tell you how disappointed I am. The Senator from North Carolina objects to making an unrelated amendment to his bill, but he insists on one to ours. It seems we are at a standoff--a standoff with a bipartisan TSCA reform that has already moved through the Senate. We have done incredible work on this with Senator Inhofe, Senator Vitter, and 60 cosponsors who are ready to roll with this with a very short timeline, and yet we have this objection. The Land and Water Conservation Fund reauthorization also has a strong majority of the Senate in favor. Fifty-three Senators signed a letter led by Senator Burr recently, and I am confident there are over 60 supporters for this. I am also confident that we will reauthorize and continue to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As the ranking Democrat on the interior subcommittee, that is an extremely high priority for me. But for some reason, TSCA is being held up by demands for a vote on unrelated Land and Water Conservation Fund legislation. I don't see how this would help matters. This dysfunctional situation is what gives the Senate a bad name. Again, I respect Senator Burr. I know he does not seek a dysfunctional Senate. On the contrary, I have watched him do his best to get the Senate to function on this important cyber security legislation. But this calls out for leadership and cooperation, not ultimatums. I will keep doing what I can to continue the conversation and bring people together on a path forward. TSCA reform is ready. We will be back one way or another. We will pass in the Senate this bill. We will resolve our differences with the House, and this critical reform will go to the President's desk. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Vitter. It has been a real pleasure working with him on the Toxic Substances Control Act. I think we have brought this a long way. First, let me speak on the pending cyber security legislation, and then I will be seeking unanimous consent to process another bill. Protecting our national security and economic interests from cyber attack is a very important priority. I commend Senator Burr and Senator Feinstein for their hard work on their legislation. I know they have also gone through a lot to get floor time on their bill and are working to process amendments. It is clear they have made a serious effort. I respect the chairman, vice chairman, and their staffs for their work. My understanding is this will pass with a large bipartisan majority in the Senate. As Chairman Burr stated yesterday, the House has already acted on cyber security legislation. He is eager to start reconciling differences and get a bill to the President's desk. That is what good legislators do. As the chairman knows, I have also been working for a number of years on a complicated legislative project, working with Senator Vitter, Senator Inhofe, and many other Senators of both parties. We are very close to the reform of the totally outdated Toxic Substances Control Act. We all know TSCA is broken. It fails to protect families and it fails to provide confidence in consumer products. We have a chance today to change that and to show that Congress can actually get things done. I am pleased Chairman Burr is a cosponsor of our legislation, along with over half of the Senate. After years of work, we are now also in a position to seek unanimous passage of TSCA reform so we can go to conference with the House of Representatives. It has been a long road with lots of productive debate and discussion and cooperation and compromise. This is a balanced bill, one that Republicans, Democrats, industry, and public health groups can all support moving forward. Not everyone loves our Senate product, but its staunchest opponents are now ready to allow for Senate passage. We can then reconcile our bill with the House, just as Senator Burr seeks to do on cyber security legislation. We have cleared this legislation on the Democratic side of the aisle with a short time agreement. My understanding is that there is nearly unanimous consent--unanimous signoff--on the Republican side as well. With that, I join with Senators Vitter and Inhofe in asking for unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 121, S. 697; further, that the only amendment in order be a substitute amendment to be offered by Senator Inhofe; that there be up to 2 hours of debate equally divided between the leaders or their designees; and that following the use or yielding back of that time the Senate vote on adoption of the amendment, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, again, I respect Senator Burr, but I am very disappointed in that objection. I take a back seat to no one in supporting the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is extremely popular in New Mexico and critical to enabling our outdoors economy. Senator Burr has been a strong leader on the LWCF. He has brought much needed attention and passion to the issue of reauthorization, and I want to work with him on that. But the current strategy of holding TSCA hostage for LWCF is not the proper one. This is the sort of thing that gives the Senate a bad reputation for dysfunction, and I do not see how it will lead to any progress on LWCF. I have not objected to Senator Burr's efforts to pass reauthorization in the Senate. In fact, I have appraised his efforts. I share his frustration that a small minority of Republicans have blocked his efforts. But now, instead of one bill being blocked, we have two. Without this objection, TSCA would pass today almost unanimously after years of hard work. So instead of holding TSCA hostage, why not consider LWCF on Senator Burr's legislation? With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy until about 3:40 p.m. with Democrats and Republicans who are going to show up here--I think Senator Vitter, Senator Inhofe, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Manchin, and we may have others who will be here. I see my good friend Senator Inhofe is here. Senator Inhofe, we are now beginning. And Senator Whitehouse is here. So if the Senator would like to jump in with his statement, that would be great at this point.

Mr. UDALL. Earlier, before the Senator got here, this is what I showed everybody, which is a picture of Frank and his grandchildren. You know well how he always talked about his grandchildren--

Mr. UDALL. And how we were supposed to legislate with grandchildren in mind. I wish to thank Senator Daines for his courtesies. The Senator can count on me and Senator Manchin to work with him on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Senator Manchin is from West Virginia, but I am from the West, like he is. I think we all believe that should move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Inhofe very much. I thank him for his leadership. He is the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I remember we came early on--Senator Vitter and myself--to him, and said: We have been working on this bill a couple of years. We think it is ready to go, but obviously it has to go through your committee. The Senator worked with us all the way along the line. A lot of this has to do with his leadership and helping us with--amending it in a way to keep making it bipartisan. That has been the history of this bill; that it has grown. As we know, it passed his committee 15 to 5. I say to Chairman Inhofe, our next speaker, Senator Whitehouse, who is on your committee, was able to work with you and three other members of the Environment and Public Works Committee to get the bill in shape so we could then get it ready for the floor. Working with you, we have made a few additional tweaks and things, but I think it is ready to go; don't you?

Mr. UDALL. This is a great example. Thank you so much. Once again, we could not have done this without your leadership, your chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee. You helped us shape this and helped us move in a bipartisan way. I am going to next ask Senator Whitehouse to talk a little bit because Senator Whitehouse has the ability--the experience of a State official, a former State attorney general. He took a look at this bill. It was ready to go in front of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He looked at it as a former AG. He looked at it in terms of the States being able to participate on enforcement and was able to help us craft a bill that could get out of committee 15 to 5. Senator Whitehouse, we appreciate your help and your hard work on this. You did an amazing job. Any thoughts, comments? Is this something the Senate can take up and get done, in terms of where we have it right now?

Mr. UDALL. I say to Senator Whitehouse, thank you so much. I just want to say about Senator Whitehouse--I mean, this bill would not be where it is today had we not had that trio working in the Environment and Public Works Committee. I really believe that. They took the bill that was coming up, we had a hearing on it, and they really analyzed it and applied all the principles Senator Whitehouse and I have both talked about, and they came up with a very significant improvement. We are here today because of his hard work. I have been very open. I think Senator Vitter, who will join us in a minute, has been very open. Both of us said: Give us your ideas, give us your input, and we are going to take a look at it. We got technical advice from the EPA and asked, ``Will this work?'' because they are over there running this bureau. So the Senator should feel very good about moving it down the field to the point where we are today.

Mr. UDALL. I say to Senator Whitehouse, I couldn't agree more. I think those are the delicate phases we have to go through. What we have been telling our House colleagues all along is we have worked long and hard on this, we have been more comprehensive than they have, and so we need their patience to work through it with us. There is not a lot of room. I couldn't agree with you more that that is where we are today. I have good relationships in the House. I served there 10 years. Fred Upton, John Shimkus, and Frank Pallone are all willing to work with us. I believe that if we look at what our goal is--to protect the American public and to protect vulnerable populations--we can get this done.

Mr. UDALL. Yes.

Mr. UDALL. I couldn't agree with the Senator more. I also wish to talk a little bit about Senator Frank Lautenberg. I have a picture here of him with his grandchildren. But let me first say, Senator Whitehouse, did you wish to mention your staff member who worked on it, who I know spent time with Jonathan Black and with the whole team? We have a great team of staff members who are very goal-oriented and who want to get things accomplished.