New Jersey Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D) and Robert Menendez (D) have placed a hold on a Bush administration nominee to protest a set of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposals to dismantle the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Last year, EPA proposed significant cuts to the TRI program, our country's most complete inventory of toxic pollution, that would according to Lautenberg, "deny thousands of communities - including 160 in New Jersey - full information about the release of hazardous toxic emissions in their neighborhoods." Voicing outrage over EPA's proposals, the New Jersey senators have placed a hold on Molly O'Neill, the Bush administration's nominee for EPA Assistant Administrator in charge of the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) - the office in charge of the TRI program. The OEI position has been vacant since January 2006, when Kimberly Nelson left the position. O'Neill was nominated March 27. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee then held a May 17 confirmation hearing to consider O'Neill's qualifications, during which several members of the committee questioned O'Neill about EPA's proposals to weaken TRI reporting and raised their concerns about the cuts. In September 2005, EPA announced three proposed changes to the TRI program that would allow industry to: (1) release ten times the amount of toxins before detailed reporting is required; (2) withhold information on Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs), like lead and mercury; and (3) report every other year, instead of annually. The agency's plans immediately raised controversy, because, for nearly 20 years, the TRI has been the essential tool in alerting emergency responders, researchers, workers, public health officials, environmentalists, community residents, and federal and state officials to the presence of toxic chemicals. The TRI changes have faced growing public opposition. The agency has received more that 122,000 public comments on the proposals - all but a handful of which strongly oppose EPA's plans. Officials and agencies from at least 23 states have also weighed in with the agency claiming that the TRI proposals would damage states' abilities to track pollution, set environmental priorities, and protect public health and the environment. "This shift in policy is just plain wrong and reckless, which is why we are placing a hold on this nominee," states Menendez. "New Jersey communities have a right to know about pollutants released into their air, their soil, and their water. Once again the Bush administration is abandoning its responsibility to protect Americans. The Bush administration may side with toxic polluters, but we won't." Coincidentally, the day after O'Neill's confirmation hearing, on May 18, the House accepted an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill that would block EPA from moving forward on the TRI changes. The House voted 231 to 187 in favor of the Pallone-Solis Toxic Right-To-Know Amendment, which would bar EPA from spending any money to finalize the proposals. There has been widespread speculation that a similar amendment will be proposed to the Senate version of that appropriations bill. Placing a hold on a nominee, such as O'Neill, is part of the Senate's unwritten code in which a Senator indicates that a filibuster may await the nominee if brought to the floor for a confirmation vote. Such holds, especially those that involve more than one senator, often block the nominee from being considered for confirmation by the full Senate, and often spur behind-the-scenes negotiations to remove the hold. In this case, the two New Jersey senators are very clear on what it would take to remove the hold: drop the EPA proposals to cut the TRI program. With the Senate expected to be in recess for most of August and October, the president could do a recess appointment. While such appointments are temporary, they avoid the necessity of a Senate confirmation vote.