Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard Dual-Status Review and Modernization Act

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve the safety oversight of products that affect every single family on a daily basis. Whether it's shampoo or shaving cream, lotion or make-up, hair dye or deodorant, personal care products are a part of our everyday lives. I thank Senator Collins for her support and hard work on this important legislation.

However, even though our bodies absorb many chemicals in these products through our skin and even our nails, their ingredients are largely unregulated. It's time to modernize our safety oversight and correct this problem. Most people assume these products have up-to-date federal oversight, but in reality the Food and Drug Administration's authority to do so is sorely outdated--in fact, it's based on a law from the 1930s that has changed little over the past eight decades. There are questions about the safety of some ingredients in these products, which not only leads to health concerns but also causes uncertainty for companies working to innovate and expand domestically.

Over the last several years, Senator Collins and I have worked with a wide group of stakeholders that represent both industry and consumer groups. Those stakeholders include small and large companies, doctors, consumer advocates, patient advocates, scientists, and the Food and Drug Administration. Together, we have drafted bipartisan legislation that puts commonsense measures in place and has the support of both industry and consumer and health organizations.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act sets up a process for reviewing the safety of ingredients in personal care products. The bill requires manufacturers to register so consumers know who produces personal care products sold in the United States.

The legislation also modernizes authority for the Food and Drug Administration so the agency is better equipped to deal with public health concerns, such as being able to recall contaminated products if companies choose not to do so voluntarily. The updated system is completely paid for by industry fees. Companies will provide information about the ingredients in their products to the Food and Drug Administration, and attest to their safety. Many companies manufacturing in the United States currently follow strict voluntary standards for manufacturing under proper conditions, but the lack of federal standards leaves this to chance. Under this legislation, the agency sets Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines to ensure companies meet minimum requirements. Companies will also need to report adverse health events related to their products to the Food and Drug Administration.

Last year, we heard about WEN shampoo, a product that was causing significant hair loss. Among those affected were children, including a little girl named Eliana who lost all of her hair after using WEN. She shared her story with my office and several of my colleagues. What's shocking is that the company received more than 20,000 reports of this happening, but under current law WEN had no legal obligation to tell the Food and Drug Administration. Under this legislation, companies would be required to do so.

Another example of concern is the ongoing use of formaldehyde, also called methylene glycol when mixed with water, in the popular hair treatment called a Brazilian blowout. Formaldehyde is released into the air during

this beauty treatment. It can cause shortness of breath, headaches, and dizziness in the short-term. Over the long-term, formaldehyde has been linked to cancer.

I am also greatly concerned about the effect on the health of salon professionals who are constantly exposed to a variety of chemicals daily. In addition to reviewing the safety of chemicals they may be exposed to, this legislation also ensures that the salon products they use are properly labeled with ingredients and warnings.

The Food and Drug Administration will be required to evaluate at least five ingredients per year for safety and use in personal care products. In addition to reviewing the latest scientific and medical studies, the agency will consider how prevalent the ingredient is, the likely exposure, adverse event reports, and information from public comments. Public input will be critical to the review process. There will be opportunities for companies, scientists, consumer groups, medical professionals, and members of the public to weigh in on, not only the safety of particular ingredients but also, which ingredients should be a priority for review. After review, the Food and Drug Administration may deem an ingredient safe, unsafe, or safe under certain uses or under certain conditions. The agency will also have the authority to require warning labels as needed for certain ingredients and limit the amount of an ingredient that may be used in personal care products. For example, some ingredients may only be safe for use by adults or when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting.

The Personal Care Products Safety Act is the result of many diverse groups working together with the common goal of modernizing the federal oversight system to ensure the safest products possible are on the market. We have worked closely with small businesses to ensure that the legislation recognizes their needs and supports their growth. This legislation incorporates changes to increase flexibility for small businesses, particularly those making low-risk products. The bill recognizes the unique nature of the handmade cosmetic industry and meets their needs to encourage growth and innovation.

I am pleased that the major organizations representing these small businesses (Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild), have said that the provisions within this legislation ``afford producers in the handmade cosmetic industry the opportunity to continue to innovate, grow, create jobs and produce safe, quality handmade products in communities across the nation.''

I am pleased to have the support of a broad coalition, including Environmental Working Group, Society for Women's Health Research, Endocrine Society, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, Au Naturale, Coalition of Handcrafted Entrepreneurs, Handcrafted Soap and Cosmetic Guild, Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, Herban Lifestyle, The Honest Company, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Babo Botanicals, Goddess Garden Organics, Caregiver Action Network, March of Dimes, EO Products, Eclair Naturals, Juice Beauty, National Psoriasis Foundation, and the following major companies that together represent over 99 brands of products: The Estee Lauder Companies, Johnson and Johnson, Procter and Gamble, Revlon, Unilever, and L'Oreal.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this much needed legislation to modernize our outdated regulatory system for personal care products, and I hope the Senate will pass this long overdue legislation this year.

Mr. President. I rise today to join with my colleagues in introducing a rescission bill to nullify President Trump's Executive Order 13798, titled ``Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.'' Unfortunately, this Executive Order does not live up to its title. Instead, it furthers the aim of this administration to diminish critical protections for women, minorities, and LGBT Americans.

I am deeply troubled by Section 3 of the Order, which paves the way for the Trump administration to roll back protections to preventive health services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), especially for women and LGBT individuals. Through new regulations issued pursuant to this Order, companies could use ``conscience-based'' objections to deny their employees coverage for preventive services that they have a right to under the ACA. This means that because of their employers' moral objection, women could lose access to contraception, and those in the LGBT community could lose access to essential services, including cancer screenings or counseling for domestic violence.

I respect that we all have religious and moral convictions, but it is wrong to put employers' religious views above individuals' rights to access basic health care. I also note that this section of the Order invites members of the President's Cabinet to eliminate an accommodation President Obama administration made allowing religiously affiliated nonprofit employers, including large universities and hospital systems, to opt out of providing their employees with contraception coverage based on religious objections.

Importantly, women working for objecting employers can receive contraception coverage directly through their insurance companies. Seven federal courts of appeals have upheld this accommodation in the face of religiously based challenges. But with this Order, the President signals that his administration is likely to do away with the accommodation, which would deny contraception access to women whose bosses want to make this important and intimate decision for them.

The Order also directs the Attorney General to issue guidance to all agencies on ``religious liberty protections in Federal law.'' This language is concerning as it opens the door for the Attorney General to eliminate protections in federal rules and regulations for LGBT individuals and minorities. The Attorney General's duty is to enforce and protect the civil rights and constitutional freedoms of all Americans. This Order's direction for guidance that could change the implementation of critical rules affording equal treatment for all in America is a disturbing step backward. For example, there are rules protecting same-sex spouses' ability to visit their partners in the hospital and ensuring that LGBT individuals have equal access to federally funded emergency housing. Under this provision, however, new religious exemptions may be implemented to weaken these protections. Shelters could turn LGBT families away because of who they love. As the Human Rights Campaign has described, this provision opens the door to a ``license to discriminate'' even where basic services funded with government dollars are at stake.

This Executive Order opens the door to weakening the enforcement of longstanding tax laws against individuals, houses of worship, and other religious organizations engaging in political campaign speech. Notably, the Johnson Amendment was proposed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 and is part of our tax code. It prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities, including churches, from engaging in political campaign activity on behalf of candidates. The Johnson Amendment does not bar nonpartisan voter education and registration activities, which are important to a strong democracy, nor does it prohibit speech on moral issues.

The President has promised to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Doing so could have a significant impact on political campaign fundraising and would change the current tax consideration for certain political contributions. While repeal of the Johnson Amendment is something only Congress has the power to do, this Executive Order clearly indicates the administration's intention to undermine the separation

between tax-exempt charities and religious organizations and political campaign activity in the tax code.

It remains to be seen whether the President and the administration will implement this Order in ways that will realize our worst fears about the kind of discrimination it could enable. But we know for certain that this Order represents a disturbing statement of principles and values. Instead of seeking even greater protections from discrimination, this administration has set the stage to undermine protections, especially for women and LGBT individuals. That is not what our country stands for.

Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill I am introducing today to nullify this troubling Executive Order.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, under current law, twenty-percent of our military dual-status technicians in the National Guard, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve will become federal civilians on October 1st. This will leave the state Governors to respond to wildfires, floods, and other natural disasters with twenty-percent fewer people. The benefits of this conversion are unclear. In fact, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau testified that no formal analysis has been conducted as to whether there is any benefit at all. It seems prudent to me to take a pause, bring all of the affected stakeholders together, and figure this problem out before we take any irreversible action. Today, I'm introducing the ``Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard Dual-Status Review and Modernization Act,'' to do exactly that.

As I've studied this situation, I understand there are a number of valid concerns involved. The current statutory construct for dual- status military technicians is nearly 50 years old and the role of the Reserve components has changed dramatically just in the past 15 years, let alone the last half-century. I agree we should update the statute to better meet the needs of the total force and my bill addresses this concern. Similarly, many Guardsmen and Reservists feel that personnel management practices under this aging construct doesn't fit the needs of a 21st century workforce. My bill addresses those concerns as well.

Most importantly, the bill ensures that there is no adverse impact to the Guard's ability to respond to domestic emergencies on October 1st, by postponing that date until Department of Defense leadership conducts a thorough, comprehensive review on the requirements of a 21st Century total force, and how our current structure should be aligned to meet those requirements. This will allow Congress to make an informed and measured judgement on how to update current law. I urge my colleagues to give this matter their full consideration and support.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, under current law, twenty-percent of our military dual-status technicians in the National Guard, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve will become federal civilians on October 1st. This will leave the state Governors to respond to wildfires, floods, and other natural disasters with twenty-percent fewer people. The benefits of this conversion are unclear. In fact, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau testified that no formal analysis has been conducted as to whether there is any benefit at all. It seems prudent to me to take a pause, bring all of the affected stakeholders together, and figure this problem out before we take any irreversible action. Today, I'm introducing the ``Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard Dual-Status Review and Modernization Act,'' to do exactly that.

As I've studied this situation, I understand there are a number of valid concerns involved. The current statutory construct for dual- status military technicians is nearly 50 years old and the role of the Reserve components has changed dramatically just in the past 15 years, let alone the last half-century. I agree we should update the statute to better meet the needs of the total force and my bill addresses this concern. Similarly, many Guardsmen and Reservists feel that personnel management practices under this aging construct doesn't fit the needs of a 21st century workforce. My bill addresses those concerns as well.

Most importantly, the bill ensures that there is no adverse impact to the Guard's ability to respond to domestic emergencies on October 1st, by postponing that date until Department of Defense leadership conducts a thorough, comprehensive review on the requirements of a 21st Century total force, and how our current structure should be aligned to meet those requirements. This will allow Congress to make an informed and measured judgement on how to update current law. I urge my colleagues to give this matter their full consideration and support.