Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Of course, Alex, thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use enough time here to just get through my thank-yous.

Mr. UDALL. The House and the Senate passed bills. We didn't actually go through conference committee, but we worked hard on those differences from late December through just a few weeks ago. We faced challenges working out a final agreement with the House. We had two very different bills. Both had broad bipartisan support, but they took very different paths to fix our broken chemical safety program, but we worked through those issues too. Although this was not a formal conference, it was a true bicameral process with a lot of give-and- take. To that end, I want to ensure the record reflects a number of views that I and some of my colleagues have about the final product. We are not filing a traditional conference report, but Senators Boxer, Markey, Merkley, and I have prepared a document to enshrine the views we have on the compromised language. That will be added to the Record for posterity on our final product. I thank all of our Senate and House colleagues who were instrumental in pulling this together. Again, Chairman Inhofe was a driving force, and Senators Vitter, Crapo, Capito, and Senators Merkley, Markey, and Boxer. Throughout this entire process, Ranking Member Boxer and I didn't always agree. We are of the same party, but we also have different opinions about the most important aspects of this legislation. I want to say I sincerely appreciate her work and advocacy, especially on State preemption. She is a force. All of my colleagues know that. She worked hard to improve this bill. The legislative process is an important one, and I believe it played out to a good resolution. I also thank her and her staff, Bettina Poirier and Jason Albritton, for their dedication and work. Then, my staff members who have been mentioned here several times were crucial: Jonathan Black, Andrew Wallace, Mike Collins, Bianca Ortiz Wertheim, and all my staff who over these 3 years kicked in and helped out when the heavy burden was on the folks I have mentioned. On the House side, I thank Chairman Fred Upton, Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus, of course Leader Pelosi, Democrat Whip Hoyer, Ranking Member Pallone, and Representatives DeGette and Green. They all worked tirelessly to advocate for reform. I would like to mention their staff members as well: Republican staff, Dave McCarthy, Jerry Couri, Tina Richardson, Chris Sarley, and the Democratic staff, Rick Kessler, Jackie Cohen, Tuley Wright, Jean Frucci, and especially Mary Frances Repko with Representative Hoyer's office, and Eleanor Bastion and Sergio Espinosa with Representatives DeGette's and Green's offices. All these staff and so many more worked tirelessly to advocate for their members and shape and move this complex and important legislation, and of course my own staff and many more whom I did not mention, many Senate and House staff who have come and gone over the long process but played very important roles. There are too many to try and list, but let me say thanks to the good folks at the House and Senate legislative counsel offices. Throughout this process, we used both offices a tremendous amount and appreciated their patience and good work, especially Michelle Johnson-Weider, Maureen Contreni, and Deanna Edwards at the Senate legislative counsel. A law like this takes so much work from all these offices and staff. I know my own staff could not have possibly done it without the expertise and advice of the experts at the Environmental Protection Agency. Of course, Administrator Gina McCarthy and her top assistant, Administrator Jim Jones, deserve a great deal of gratitude for all they did to help support our efforts and ensure we got it right, and many congressional liaisons, program officers, and lawyers from the general counsel's office. My staff and others spent many evenings and weekends with EPA experts on calls to make sure we were getting the text right. Here are just a few: Wendy Cleland-Hamnet, Ryan Wallace, Priscilla Flattery, Kevin McLean, Brian Grant, David Berol, Laura Vaught, Nichole Distefano, Sven-Erik Kaiser, Tristan Brown, Ryan Schmit, Don Sadowsky, and Scott Sherlock. I thank them all and put them on alert: The real job for the EPA is only beginning. I am about finished, Senator Markey.

Mr. UDALL. I thank the Senator. He knows, because he has served so many years, how important it is to have good staff. I want to make sure we get them thanked here. I appreciate that. Implementation of this law is going to be extremely important. As the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee with jurisdiction over EPA, I will remain very involved in ensuring that this law gets implemented well. Finally, I also recognize all the great advocates for reform who pushed Congress to act and kept pushing until we did act. Of course, I need to start by thanking the Environmental Defense Fund. In particular, Fred Krupp and his staff, Richard Denison, Joanna Slaney, and Jack Pratt. Let me also thank Dr. Lynn Goldman, the dean of Public Health at George Washington University, and the good advocates at Moms Clean Air Force, the Humane Society, the National Wildlife Federation, the March of Dimes, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the Building Trades, the American Association of Justice, and so many others. They reminded us that we are working for reform that would improve the lives of countless mothers, fathers, and children. From New Mexico to Michigan, from California to Maine, they reminded us that the American people need a working chemical safety program. I know there are many other groups in the environmental and public health community that took a different approach to our bill. I understand and appreciate where they were coming from--groups like Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. They brought passion and conviction to the debate and stood firm on principles. They played a great and important role, and I want to thank them for that. Good legislation takes work. It takes give-and-take from everyone, including industry groups, the American Chemistry Council, the American Cleaning Institute, and over 100 other members of the American Alliance for Innovation. Thank you for engaging in the process to get this done. Many thousands of Americans have worked for chemical safety reform over the last four decades. I am thanking you for not giving up. My dad always said--and Senator McCain knew my father Stewart Udall-- ``Get it done, but get it done right.'' And today I can say that not only did we get it done, but we got it done right. Let's not forget, this is just one step in the process. We must find a way to work collaboratively as we turn to the next step--implementation. Implementation needs to be done and needs to be done right. I look forward to working with all of these members and groups to ensure we have a strong, workable chemical safety program. Thank you, Senator McCain. I am sorry if this went longer than you expected. I know my Uncle Mo is looking down and saying thank you to you and my father Stewart and the long relationship you have had with the Udall family and the chapters in your books about Mo Udall and that relationship. So thank you so much, and I thank also Ranking Member Jack Reed for his patience. I know the hour is getting late. Thank you so much. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. I did my best.

Mr. UDALL. I will yield.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me just initially, while Senator Vitter is still on the floor here, thank him so much. He was a great partner in terms of working on this piece of legislation thoroughly through the process over 3 years. We met, I think, about 3 years ago and had a dinner and decided, after Frank Lautenberg had died--he did a lot of work on the bill--that we would pick it up and make it happen. He has been a man of his word, and it has been a real pleasure working with him. Let me just say about Chairman Inhofe that what they say in the Senate is that if you have a strong chairman, you can get a bill done. He has been remarkable in terms of his strength and his perseverance in terms of moving this bill. So we are at a very, very historic point today. I think I would call it a historic moment. I thank the Senator. It has been a pleasure working with the Senator. I enjoined working with the Senator when I was on the committee, and I am going to enjoy working with Chairman Inhofe in the future in terms of many other issues that come before us in the Senate. I don't have any doubt that this is a historic moment several years and Congresses in the making. For the first time in 40 years, the United States of America will have a chemical safety program that works and that protects our families from dangerous chemicals in their daily lives. This is significant. Most Americans believe that when they buy a product at the hardware store or the grocery store, that product has been tested and determined to be safe. But that is not the case. Americans are exposed to hundreds of chemicals from household items. We carry them around with us in our bodies and even before we are born. Some are known as carcinogens, others as highly toxic. But we don't know the full extent of how they affect us because they have never been tested. When this bill becomes law, there will finally be a cop on the beat. Today, under the old TSCA, reviewing chemicals is discretionary. When this bill is law, the EPA will be required to methodically review all existing chemicals for safety, starting with the worst offenders. Today, the old law requires that the EPA consider the costs and benefits of regulation when studying the safety of chemicals. Very soon, EPA will have to consider only the health and environmental impacts of a chemical. If they demonstrate a risk, EPA will have to regulate. Very soon, it will be enshrined in the law that the EPA most protect the most vulnerable people--pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and chemical workers. Today, the old TSCA puts burdensome testing requirements on the EPA. To test a chemical, the EPA has to show a chemical possesses a potential risk, and then it has to go through a long rulemaking process. Very soon, EPA will have authority to order testing without those hurdles. Today, the old TSCA allows new chemicals to go to market without any real review, an average of 750 a year. Very soon, the EPA will be required to determine that all chemicals are safe before they go to the market. Today, the old TSCA allows companies to hide information about their products, claiming it is confidential business information, even in an emergency. Very soon, we will ensure that companies can no longer hide this vital information. States, medical professionals and the public will have access to the information they need to keep communities safe. Businesses will have to justify when they keep information confidential. That right will expire after 10 years. Today, the old TSCA underfunds the EPA so it doesn't have the resources to do its job. Very soon, there will be a dedicated funding stream for TSCA. It will require industry to pay its share, $25 million a year. In addition, this new law will ensure victims can get access to the courts if they are hurt. It will revolutionize unnecessary testing on animals, and it will ensure that States can continue to take strong action on dangerous chemicals. The Senate is about to pass this legislation. It is going to the President, and he will sign it. Over the past several days, I have gotten the same question over and over: What made this legislation different? Why was the agreement possible when other bills stalled? I thought about it quite a bit. It wasn't that the bill was simple. This was one of the most complex environmental pieces of legislation around. It certainly wasn't a lack of controversy. This process almost fell apart many times. It certainly wasn't a lack of interest from stakeholders. Many groups were involved, all with strong and passionate views and some with deep distrust. We faced countless obstacles, but I think what made this possible was the commitment and the willpower by everyone involved to see good legislation through and endure the slings and the arrows. I say a heartfelt thank-you to everyone involved. I remember having dinner with Senator Vitter one evening early on when I was trying to decide whether I would take up Frank Lautenberg's work on this bill. There was already plenty of controversy and concern about the bill. Senator Vitter and I were not used to working with each other. In fact, we have almost always been on opposite sides. But I left that dinner with the feeling that Senator Vitter was committed, that he wanted to see this process through and was willing to do what it would take. For 3 years, I never doubted that. Both of us took more than a little heat. We both had to push hard and get important groups to the table and make sure they stayed at the table. I thank Senator Vitter. He has been a true partner in this process. There are many others to thank, and I will, but before I do that, I want to say a few words about this bill's namesake. Frank Lautenberg was a champion for public health and a dogged, determined leader for TSCA reform. He cared so much for his children and grandchildren that he wanted to leave a better, healthier, safer environment for them. He always said that TSCA reform would save more lives than anything he ever worked on. This is a bittersweet moment for all of us because Frank isn't here to see this happen, but I have faith that he is watching us and he is cheering us on. His wife Bonnie has been here working as the 101st Senator. She has been a force and inspiration, keeping us going, pushing us when we needed it. She helped us fulfill Frank's vision. In the beginning, we thought the bill might not ever get introduced in the Senate. We entered this Congress after the Republicans took the majority. Many felt that strong environmental legislation was impossible. They urged us to wait. But many of us felt that 40 years was already too long to wait. We knew we could do it, make it better, and get it passed. Senator Carper was one of those key members on the Environment Committee. He gave us legs to get out of the gate. He and Senators Manchin and Coons were among our original cosponsors. They recognized that we had a great opportunity before us, and I thank them all. They say that in order to get things done in Washington, you need a good, strong chairman, and Chairman Inhofe fits that description. I thank Chairman Inhofe and especially his staff, Ryan Jackson and Dimitri Karakitsos. Chairman Inhofe's team was instrumental in moving things forward and working with me to ensure that we built the broadest possible support. They knew that with broad support, we could do better than get it out of committee, we could get it across the finish line. There are days when we all feel discouraged by gridlock here in Washington, but Chairman Inhofe and Senator Vitter rose above that. They saw the value of working together across party and across House and Senate. Senators Booker, Merkley, and Whitehouse all understood that we could work together. I thank them, too, for sticking with this bill and working through differences. As a result of their efforts, the bill gives States stronger protections, it helps reduce unnecessary testing on animals, and it includes a number of other improvements. Their staff--Adam Zipkin, Adrian Deveny, and Emily Enderle, among others-- were key. A strong bipartisan vote of 15 to 5 out of the committee set us up for action on floor. As many of you know, floor time is valuable and hard to come by and subject to nonpertinent issues. We needed to work to ensure the broadest possible support. We did that with Senators Durbin and Markey, our 59th and 60th cosponsors of our legislation. I thank them and their staff members, Jasmine Hunt and Michal Freedhoff, for their important work to improve key aspects of the Federal program, such as fees and implementation dates, and to ensure that we could pass this bill through the Senate.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, has my time expired?

Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much. Let me just say that I am going to stay over. I thank the two Senators. I am going to stay with Senator Inhofe and thank additional people because I think it is that important, but we have this time agreement, and we need to move on. I yield to Senator Markey for 5 minutes, and then we are going to Senator Whitehouse for 5 minutes unless there is a Republican to intervene. Chairman Inhofe, is that correct?

Mr. UDALL. I yield time to--the agreement, as I understand it, is that Senator Markey will speak for 5 minutes and Senator Whitehouse for 5 minutes and then back to the Chair.

Mr. UDALL. I thank the chairman. I just want to say to Chairman Inhofe, the bipartisanship he showed is incredible, and it showed what a significant accomplishment we could have. I also want to thank so much Senator McCain for allowing us to fit a little slice here in the middle of this very important bill, the NDAA, which I know he works on all year long. He does a terrific job. He allowed us to come in. He knew my uncle, Mo Udall. They served together in the House. I said: I hope you will do this for Mo. He just got a very big smile on his face because he spent so much time with him.

Mr. UDALL. I am ready to do that also, if the Senator will yield.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I will just also--has the Senator finished? I just wanted to say a few closing words and thank a few more people staying to the end, but of course the chairman needs to finish his remarks.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, recently we have had some very welcoming news out of the House of Representatives on the Toxic Substances Control Act. The House passed that in the last several days 403 to 12-- a wonderful, large, bipartisan majority--and I am glad we are going to proceed to TSCA sometime soon and deal with the legislation on the Senate floor. Mr. President, most Americans believe if they buy a product at the grocery store or a hardware store, the government has tested it and determined it is safe. Until now, that has not been true. We are exposed to hundreds of chemicals in our daily lives. In countless ways we can breathe, eat, and drink chemicals. They can be absorbed through our skin, even from common household items. Some are toxic, but almost none are regulated. Let me cite now a couple of examples. There are flame retardants in your sofa and in other furniture that get up into the air when pressure is put on the furniture. There is formaldehyde in pressed-wood floors and carpets, glues and adhesives even in noniron shirts. There are the PFOA compounds from the nonstick coating on your frying pans and bakeware. Most water bottles are BPA-free now, but you still find BPA in your credit card receipts. Some laser printers give off ultrafine particles like volatile organic compounds that can cause serious health problems. I could go on and on and on with the list of chemicals out there in our society that citizens are exposed to every day. As a result of that exposure, we carry these chemicals around in our bodies, even before we are born, but we don't know the full impact they are having on our health because in the last 40 years only a handful have ever been reviewed for safety. The EPA lacks the ability to evaluate and the authority to regulate, even though some have linked many of these chemicals to various kinds of diseases, such as cancer, infertility, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, hyperthyroidism, and other diseases that are out there. Infants, pregnant women, the elderly, and workers exposed to chemicals on the job are particularly at risk for chemical exposure. For example, we have seen an increase in cancer rates among firefighters who get exposed to chemicals from smoldering furniture in house fires. That is why we must pass the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. It will be a working chemical safety law for the whole country--for our families, for our children. We will, for the first time, have a cop on the beat when it comes to safety and protecting our children and our communities from dangerous chemicals. For the first time in 40 years, we are going to have that cop out there working hard to make sure our families are safe. Getting here has taken years--years of negotiations and collaboration, working with stakeholders across the country. Now, Congress can send the President a strong, bipartisan environmental reform bill, and he will sign it into law. There is no doubt about that from the statement put out by the administration on this bill. In fact, I think they called it landmark reform by the Congress. The EPA has commented on the bill. They stated: [This bill] is a clear improvement over current law and is largely consistent with the administration's principles for TSCA reform. Critically, the bill would address the fundamental flaws that have hindered EPA's ability to protect human health and the environment from chemical risks. The administration has also put out a statement of policy saying that it ``strongly supports'' this legislation. Americans have been calling out for this reform for decades. They understand we need a national solution to our broken chemical safety law because they have seen the impacts firsthand, like Dominique Browning, who works with Moms Clean Air Force. She survived kidney cancer and now wants a safer place for her kids. When she asked her doctor what caused her illness, he said: It's one of those environmental ones. Who knows. We are full of chemicals. And 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 it isn't what she saw at work that motivated her to work for reform. It was what she saw at home. Lisa's 13-year-old son Harrison was born with autism and other autoimmune deficiencies. Five years ago, Lisa testified before Senator Lautenberg's subcommittee on the need for reform. Since then, her husband Marc has undergone tests for a rare and newly discovered disease that wasn't even known to exist when she testified. So she is eager to see TSCA reform be signed into law. Lisa recently wrote to me and said: The concerns I expressed 5 years ago remain today. I have no way of knowing if the household products that I use or the toys my son plays with are really safe because the chemicals that make them up are not rigorously tested and there is little or no information regarding them. And if I, a person well educated in the field of human exposure to chemicals, cannot be confident that I am keeping my family safe, then neither can the average person. My office has appreciated Lisa's emails and photographs of Harrison dressed as a broccoli for Halloween and of Marc playing his favorite guitar. They have inspired us to keep going, to recognize that this legislation has a tremendous impact on real people. Thanks to Lisa and Dominique and the many others who care about a safe environment, healthy kids, the safety of the clothes we wear, the pots and pans we cook with, and the substances we breathe, we finally have an opportunity to pass a law that will keep our kids safe from dangerous chemicals. TSCA was enacted in 1967 and was one of the major laws of the 1960s and 1970s. That was when Rachel Carson and environmental leaders who worked with her opened our eyes. They showed us how air pollution, water pollution, and chemicals in our environment were affecting our health and changing ecosystems right in our backyards. TSCA was supposed to protect American families, but it didn't. Since 1976, thousands of chemicals a year have been manufactured and released onto the market without a safety evaluation and without meaningful regulation. In over four decades, the EPA has been able to restrict just five chemicals and has prevented only four chemicals out of tens of thousands from going to market. It took 40 years to fix this broken system. Now we have historic reform--decades in the making and decades overdue. Here are some of the ways we are reforming this broken law and replacing it with a working safety program: Under the old TSCA, reviewing chemicals was discretionary. This new law requires that EPA methodically review existing chemicals for safety, starting with the worst offenders. The old TSCA required that the EPA consider the costs and benefits of regulation and then study the safety of chemicals. This new law requires that the EPA consider only the health and environmental impacts of a chemical, and, if they demonstrate a risk, the EPA must regulate it. This new law states that when it considers the safety of a chemical, the EPA must evaluate how it would impact the most vulnerable--pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and chemical workers. The old TSCA put burdensome requirements on the EPA. To test a chemical, the EPA had to show it posed a potential risk, and then it had to go through a long rulemaking process. Our new law gives the EPA new authority to order testing without those hurdles. The old TSCA allowed new chemicals to go to market without any real review. An average of about 750 new chemicals flowed onto the market a year. This new law would require the EPA to determine that all chemicals are safe before they go to the market. The old TSCA allowed companies to hide information about their products, claiming it is confidential business information even in an emergency. This new law will ensure that companies can no longer hide. States, medical professionals, and the public will have access to this information. It ensures that businesses must justify when they keep information confidential, and that will expire after 10 years. The old TSCA underfunded the EPA, so it never had the resources to do the job. This new law creates a new, dedicated funding stream that requires industry to pay its share--$25 million a year. In addition, this new law ensures victims access to the courts if they are hurt, minimizes unnecessary testing on animals, and ensures States can continue to take strong action on dangerous chemicals. We have spent a great deal of time on the right of States to act. My colleague, Senator Boxer, has said this is one of the hardest pieces of legislation she has ever worked on. I agree with her. Finding the right balance between State and Federal was not easy; there is no doubt about it. But we stayed at the table, we worked hard, and I believe we have a true compromise. It is a compromise that creates stronger Federal tools to test, review, and regulate chemicals, that ensures States can act when the EPA is not acting, that protects the work that States have already done, and that allows States to get a waiver when there is overlap with the EPA. Some of our colleagues have said that, while they will support this bill, it isn't a bill they would have written. I agree. If it were up to me, I would have written a different bill. But, if it were up to me, it also wouldn't have taken 40 years for us to get to reform. And it isn't up to me. It isn't up to any one of us. Legislating, especially on complex and difficult issues--issues that affect all aspects of health, environment, and commerce--takes work, it takes patience, and it takes compromise. This bill took all the hard work, patience, and cooperation we had. The end result is a stronger regulatory program to test and assess chemicals, a stronger program to ensure that our most vulnerable children and loved ones are protected, and a stronger program that ensures the public has access to important health and safety information on chemicals. Our colleagues in the House supported this bill, as I said earlier, 403 to 12. That is two more votes than the Clean Air Act amendment got in 1991, so it shows strong bipartisan support. This is the largest margin for a major environmental bill in decades. I believe the Senate very soon will follow suit. This probably isn't the place to do it. I have a long list of people I would like to thank in terms of the staff effort. One of the things that is absolutely clear is our staff--all of our staff that were involved in this--worked very hard and helped us reach that perfect spot where we had a good compromise, so I will do some of those thank- yous at a later point. But I want to say, it is very important that we realize why we named this law after Frank Lautenberg. He started us on this path. It was Frank Lautenberg. I have a picture of him here with his grandchildren. The picture was taken by his wife Bonnie Lautenberg, who is a wonderful photographer. Frank was always motivated. He was always motivated by his children and grandchildren. He used to sit in committee, and I will never forget him asking questions very specifically: How does this impact future generations--children, grandchildren? What impact is this going to have? He became very frustrated with the gridlock, with the problems that we were having in terms of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. So he teamed up with Senator Vitter, and almost immediately 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans joined in on that bill. I was one of the 12 Democrats. Shortly thereafter, we lost Frank, so I decided this is something that should be picked up and continued. Frank had set such a great example, and we had some good bipartisan momentum. So Senator Vitter and I had dinner, and we decided we were going to see this through. One of our greatest partners--and, really, our inspiration in helping us see this through--was Bonnie Lautenberg. She took her pain and agony and wanted to get something done; she plowed it into something positive. She has been absolutely terrific in terms of working with all of us in the House and in the Senate. I know Representative Shimkus in the House has said some very flattering things about her, all of which are true. One of the things she did is help hold together Frank Lautenberg's staff, who had worked on the legislation for close to 15 years. They had various drafts over the years of chemical legislation. They knew the facts, they knew the evidence, and they knew what was out there and the dangers to the children and the grandchildren. So she worked with them, and she helped keep us on track. It is wonderful to have her with us today in Washington, being able to see this happen hopefully today, maybe a little bit later in the day. I want to thank her so much and have her know that she really inspired us, kept us focused, and kept us on track. I am hopeful that we are going to act very soon. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I urge the President to sign it. If we do that, we are going to be in a much better place as a country and as a society. Mr. President, I see that my good friend Senator Inhofe, chairman of the committee, is here. They always say around here--and I know my good friend, Patty Murray, told me this: You don't get a bill through this Congress without having a strong chairman, and there couldn't have been a stronger chairman than Chairman Inhofe.

Mr. UDALL. We sure will. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. I very much agree with that. When it comes to innovation, when it comes to moving in the direction of creating products that are going to be sustainable over time, I don't have any doubt that this bill is going to have a huge impact. I think the thing that the Senator, as chairman, helped us do is--we always kept everybody at the table. Industry was at the table, environmental groups, public health groups. The EPA was giving us technical advice. We had the States and others. We stayed at the table and worked through the problems and created a piece of legislation that I think, when it becomes law, will end up helping to create jobs, make a safer environment, and protect our families and our children. I will never forget when Senator Vitter and I came to you when you became the chairman at the beginning of this Congress. We told you of the bipartisan support we had, and you said right then: We are going to get on this. We are going to do this. You have been true to your word. You have worked very hard on this. It has been an inspiration for me to work in a bipartisan way and have a strong chairman. We ran into bumpy times with the House for a while, but having a strong chairman really made a difference on this. So I thank the Senator so much.

Mr. UDALL. Bonnie Lautenberg is here with the Congress. We don't want to violate any of the rules. I think she is in the room with us here today. She came down today. As the Senator knows, we have a First Lady's Luncheon, and all the spouses attend that luncheon. Then in the night, all the Senators get together for the annual dinner. Bonnie Lautenberg has been here ever since then. She has been down here numerous times, as the Senator knows. I don't know if the Senator was here earlier. I was remarking on what a great photograph this is of Frank Lautenberg. Look at the grandchildren. They all have wonderful smiles. As the Senator knows, he always talked in committee about his grandchildren. She is a pretty incredible photographer. She took this picture.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, the following information is in response to an article entered into the record by Senator Boxer of California earlier today. The Hearst News article in question was published in the San Francisco Chronicle and implies that the chemical industry drafted S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. This implication is false. The bill authors, including myself, wrote this bill. Drafts of the bill were circulated to many interested stakeholders throughout the drafting process and returned with comments. This process took over 3 years, and drafts were circulated each step of the way. Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act was a very involved and transparent process. Environmental groups, trial lawyers, industry, State officials, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were consulted at many stages throughout the process. All of their input is reflected in the bill in various provisions, often the same ones. This is major comprehensive legislation that has received wide bipartisan support. The New York Times looked into the allegation that the chemical industry wrote the bill. Their lead reporter, Eric Lipton, wrote on March 17: ``Lots of players, including enviros, submitted drafts with proposed changes.'' Again, many drafts of this bill were shared by a variety of Senate offices with many stakeholders in a very engaged process over 3 years. It is disappointing that I must refute this allegation in the Congressional Record, but it is important to get the facts straight when explaining the legislative history of TSCA reform. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a longstanding New Mexico institution: Bueno Foods. New Mexicans pride ourselves for our creative and delicious food, especially our homegrown chile. It is our official State vegetable and even the reason for our official state question, ``Red or Green?'' While generations of New Mexicans have loved chile in all sorts of forms, even dessert, our famous cuisine has more recently been adopted by food lovers across the world. And that is largely thanks to Bueno Foods. On May 18, 2016, Bueno Foods of Albuquerque, NM, will celebrate its 65th anniversary. That is a cause to celebrate Bueno Foods can trace its heritage to Hispanic farmers and businessowners going back to the Spanish explorers who came to New Mexico in the 1500s. The company was formed in 1946 when several brothers from an old New Mexico family, the Bacas, returned from serving in World War II and scraped together enough money to start a grocery business. Their grocery was very successful at the beginning, but it faced a strong challenge when larger chains started opening up branches in the State. So the Baca brothers set out to benefit from New Mexico's unique heritage, differentiate their business from out-of-state grocers, preserve our traditions, and of course, expand their sales. Bueno Foods was born, founded in 1951, manufacturing corn and flour tortillas, tamales and posole at a time when household appliances were just entering many homes around the country. The brothers had another idea, too: to take chile, roast it over an open flame as the New Mexico autumn tradition dictates, and freeze it so that people could enjoy green chile year-round. It was a success, and history was made. Over half a century later, you can find Bueno Foods in nearly every grocery store in the State and many others outside New Mexico. From Hawaii to Washington, DC, Bueno Foods has served as a proud ambassador of New Mexico cuisine, exposing new markets to delicious, fiery chile and the critical question, ``red or green?'' For 65 years, Bueno Foods has made an old dicho the reality for all of us. ``Panza llena, corazon contento; Full belly, happy heart.'' Today, I recognize the Baca brothers, Jacqueline, Gene, Catherine, Ana, and the rest of the Bueno Foods family for the business they started and the tradition they still are helping to preserve.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today I want to recognize a great New Mexican and a great American. Eva Encinias-Sandoval is a pioneer and a cultural icon in the world of flamenco in New Mexico. New Mexico has a long and rich cultural history with flamenco as one of its dynamic traditions. Flamenco is a complex art form that originated in Spain and blends influences from different cultures. It mixes both discipline and spontaneity. With sweeping, expressive arm movements and rhythmic stomping often accompanied by singing or music, flamenco is more than a form of dance. It incorporates guitar, percussion, and song as integral parts of the art form. Eva Encinias-Sandoval's career in flamenco spans more than 40 years. Her professional expertise includes performance, teaching choreography, concert production, and direction. Eva began dancing and teaching flamenco at a young age. Her mother, Clarita, was also a dancer, and Eva started her training at the age of 5. At age 14, Eva began teaching students in her mother's studio, and in 1973, she formed her first flamenco dance company, Ritmo Flamenco. The following year, she enrolled in the University of New Mexico, though the dance department did not offer flamenco classes at the time. Eva began teaching flamenco as a single course offering at UNM in 1976. Now, the program of study includes all levels of flamenco technique and specialized topics. As a result of Eva's dedication and passion, UNM is the only institution in the country that offers bachelor of arts and masters of fine arts degrees with a concentration in flamenco. Eva later went on to establish the National Institute of Flamenco in 1982. NIF is a nonprofit arts organization dedicated to the preservation and advancement of flamenco in the United States. With Eva's artistic vision and guidance, the organization has expanded to include several thriving programs, such as the Conservatory of Flamenco Arts, Festival Flamenco Internacional de Albuquerque, Alma Flamenca, and many others. Eva's work has also helped bring renowned international flamenco artists from Spain and other parts of the world to study and teach in our State, adding a depth of knowledge and expertise to her students' experiences. She hopes that her students will become the better artists by learning alongside the best artists. She was the first woman inducted into the Albuquerque Wall of Fame, has received three Bravo awards, and accolades from her colleagues and students. Despite the importance of these awards and honors, they are not what distinguishes Eva most. Instead, it is the example she sets in always doing her best, always giving back, and always striving for excellence. Eva has changed her community as a talented dancer and teacher who has inspired countless students. She is deeply committed to her community and pays equal attention to young, less experienced dancers as more advanced students. Although the origins of flamenco are cloudy, the Encinias family is a true ``flamenco family.'' Eva's children, Marisol and Joaquin, are both dancers. Her passion and legacy will live on through them, as well as her students who can be found at NIF, UNM, and, now, Tierra Adentro, a local charter school that incorporates flamenco into its curriculum. Our State is fortunate to have someone like Eva Encinias-Sandoval, who not only sees the beauty of art, but also the beauty of our culture. Flamenco will continue to grow in New Mexico thanks to her dedicated work and the love of dance she continues to share with the community. By educating mostly New Mexican students, Eva views flamenco as an opportunity to teach our State's youth programs relevant to whom they are as a people. Flamenco is an art form that is as unique as the artists who study it. Whether through an appreciation or dedication to the art form, Eva Encinias-Sandoval has brought flamenco into the lives of countless New Mexicans. Her love for the art has not gone unnoticed, and I commend her for all of her accomplishments and her service to our State.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, first I wish to thank and congratulate Chairman Lisa Murkowski and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell for all their hard work and leadership on this Energy bill. They have done a very good job of getting this bill to the floor, and we now find ourselves in the position to offer amendments, which I am here to do. I think all of us are very happy to be able to be moving this legislation along and amending it. My amendment is a very simple study amendment. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to study and submit a report to Congress on potential clean energy victory bonds. This amendment is pro-clean energy. It changes no rules, it does not mandate any actual bonds, and being a study it does not score or impact the budget. Citizens across this country want to see a cleaner energy future. They are doing their part to conserve energy, purchase cleaner energy, and invest in clean energy mutual funds. They are doing this on a voluntary basis. It is having a big impact and pushing clean energy technologies forward in a rather dramatic way, but we also understand our energy challenges are broad and require large-scale investments by many investors. We can harness and keep it voluntary without any cost to taxpayers through clean energy victory bonds. The Federal Government is our Nation's largest energy consumer, with more than 350,000 buildings and 600,000 road vehicles. Think about your own electricity bill that you pay each month and the gas you buy at the pump. The U.S. Government has to pay such bills as well to the tune of over $20 billion each year. Most of that, about two-thirds, is for petroleum. The Federal Government wants to cut its bills too. We invest in clean energy through energy efficiency upgrades and through power purchase agreements for cleaner energy and stable, predictable energy prices. The government has a choice about these options just as private citizens do. Private citizens can choose the types of energy they purchase for their homes and their businesses, and many opt for wind power, solar power, or other clean energy sources, or they install energy-efficient windows and appliances. Many tell me they want to help our government make these choices as well. Clean energy victory bonds could help us move in that direction. By purchasing a Treasury bond specifically devoted to clean energy, Americans can help the government supplement its energy purchases with energy efficiency upgrades and clean energy decisions. These investments could provide additional support to existing Federal financing programs already available to States for energy efficiency upgrades and clean energy. What is exciting about this option is that smart investments can help pay for themselves and bring a return on investment to people who purchase these bonds. That is why we think it is so important to study this option. It is a simple financial instrument that is a win for people saving money and a win for reducing the government's energy bill and it is all on a voluntary basis. During the First and Second World Wars, our country faced threats we had never faced before. We rose to the challenge and gave it everything we had. Everyone contributed, and for many that included investing in victory bonds. They helped pay for the cost of the war--$185 billion. That would be over $2 trillion today. Folks lined up to buy those bonds. That is the spirit of the American people--to pull together. It was true then and it is still true today. We face a very different challenge today. Our energy challenges are seen on multiple fronts, from the impacts to our environment to our global and international struggles based on our dependence on foreign oil. Citizens want to unite and contribute. They want investments in homegrown American clean energy. Many cannot afford to buy solar panels for their own homes or invest $1,000 minimums to buy clean energy mutual funds, but many can afford $25 for a clean energy victory bond. This amendment asks the Secretary of the Treasury to help inform Congress on the feasibility and structure of developing such a tool. It has broad support from groups such as the American Sustainable Business Council, Green America, the American Wind Energy Association, Ceres, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and many other groups. It has broad support out there. Mr. President, I ask to call up my amendment No. 3312 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. UDALL. I thank the Presiding Officer and will yield the floor. I know Senators Bennet and Isakson are here. They are both great leaders when it comes to clean energy and working on this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment is a very simple study amendment. It does nothing more than ask for a study. It is pro clean energy; it changes no rules; it doesn't mandate anything; it has no cost; it has no score. It simply directs the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a report to Congress on the issuance of clean energy victory bonds. It is supported by a number of groups. Just to mention a few: the American Sustainable Business Council, the Evangelical Environmental Network, the League of Conservation Voters, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a number of others. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I rise today to remember a great New Mexican and a great American, Dr. Miguel Encinias, who passed away on Saturday, February 20, at the age of 92. New Mexico has a long and proud tradition of military service. Dr. Encinias is often called ``New Mexico's most decorated veteran.'' He fought in three wars and was the recipient of 3 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 14 Air Medals, and 2 Purple Hearts. His military career is one of courage and sacrifice. He later played an important role in the creation of the World War II Memorial here in Washington, DC. If the measure of a life is living to the utmost of one's talents and giving the utmost of one's self, Miguel Encinias is an inspiration to all of us. I think that is why he will long be remembered with such admiration and gratitude. His service began at the young age of 16 when he joined the New Mexico National Guard in 1939. Within 4 years, he had become a second lieutenant and a pilot in the Army Air Corps. Over the next three decades he fought with distinction in three wars: World War II, the Korean war, and Vietnam. As his friend and mine, Ralph Arellanes, who is chairman of the Hispano Roundtable of New Mexico, said of Miguel: Miguel flew 245 combat missions as a fighter pilot. Few American aviators in history have flown combat missions in three wars. Miguel was one of them. He was shot down over Italy in 1944 and served over 15 months in a Nazi prison camp. He volunteered to go to Korea and was shot down again but not captured. He answered the call of his country many times with great courage and sacrifice. Dr. Encinias retired as a lieutenant colonel in 1971, but if that was the conclusion of his storied military career, it was just the beginning of new accomplishments and new achievements. He returned to New Mexico and earned a doctorate in Hispanic literature at the University of New Mexico. In an article about his life, the Albuquerque Journal said: ``As a scholar, educator, New Mexico historian, and decorated combat flyer in three wars, Miguel Encinias both studied and shaped history in a life that spanned nine decades.'' There was an article about Miguel in the Santa Fe New Mexican, and they put it this way: ``An ace in the air, a scholar on the ground.'' He earlier obtained a degree in political science at Georgetown University and a master's degree at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris. In 1995 he was requested by President Clinton to serve on the World War II Memorial Advisory Board. By the time the memorial was built in 2004, Dr. Encinias was the only living member of the board to see it completed. It was a happy day for him. In an interview with the Albuquerque Journal, Dr. Encinias's son, Juan-Pablo Encinias, summed up what so many who knew Dr. Encinias understood: ``It's kind of amazing how much he accomplished,'' his son said. ``He really didn't stop.'' Those accomplishments, according to the Journal, included teaching Hispanic literature at two universities and developing bilingual education in New Mexico schools. Dr. Encinias also found the time to write several books on New Mexico history and to fund a theater group and a light opera company in Albuquerque. His son Juan-Pablo also remarked to the Journal that Dr. Encinias ``was very just and felt very strongly about people getting their fair shake in life.'' Dr. Encinias was honored for his work for civil rights and social justice by the New Mexico LULAC branch in 2007 and the Hispano Roundtable of New Mexico in 2011. As important as the medals and honors are, they aren't the most important thing we will remember about Dr. Encinias. It is the example he set in always doing his best, in always giving back, both in wartime and at home. His daughter Isabel shared with me that although her father had incredibly high standards and was very tough, he had an incredible amount of compassion and always fought for the underdog. Whether risking his own life to save that of his fellow airmen or fighting for quality education and opportunity for everyone, Miguel Encinias committed himself to the needs of others. On November 11, 1995, at the World War II Memorial site dedication, Dr. Encinias was introduced by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He received a standing ovation from President Clinton and everyone present. They knew they were seeing a true patriot and a true hero and a great American. On that day, President Clinton thanked Dr. Encinias and said for ``your truly remarkable service to our nation.'' To all who knew this extraordinary man and who mourn him now, we know his life was indeed a remarkable story of courage, of dedication, and of generosity of spirit. Madam President, my State has lost one of its heroes. Over the course of a long and distinguished life, Dr. Miguel Encinias always found ways to serve, and New Mexico and our Nation are better for it. My wife Jill and I extend our sincere condolences to the Encinias family on the passing of Dr. Encinias. We honor his courage, we honor his service, and we mourn his loss with the family. Thank you very much. I suggest the absence of a quorum.