Tsca Modernization Act of 2015

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation named after the late Senator Frank R. Lautenberg from New Jersey, a great friend of mine and a longtime environmental champion.

The Toxic Substance Control Act, or TSCA, has not been updated since it was adopted 40 years ago. For decades we have known that the law is broken. So this legislation is long past due, and I hope that it will soon become law.

Had the law worked effectively from the beginning, we might never have had BPA in baby bottles or toxic flame retardants in children's pajamas and in our living room couches. Workers may have also been protected from exposure to asbestos decades ago.

Let me stress that last point. In 1989, after more than 10 years of study and analysis, the EPA banned asbestos under TSCA, but the ban was overturned by the courts because of serious flaws in the statute and serious limitations on the EPA's authority.

That court decision came down 25 years ago. Imagine the lives that could have been saved and the injuries that could have been prevented if that ban had stood.

Now, reforming this law is about preventing injuries and saving lives. It is about protecting vulnerable populations: infants, children, workers, the elderly, and communities that are disproportionately exposed to toxic chemicals.

It is about getting dangerous chemicals like lead, mercury, and asbestos out of our consumer products, out of commerce, and out of the environment.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is a step forward in reaching this important goal. Let me briefly describe some of the improvements.

This bill would make it easier for the EPA to require testing of chemicals by allowing them to act through orders instead of rulemakings.

It will also make it easier for the EPA to regulate chemicals by removing procedural hurdles in current law and providing more resources through user fees.

It will ensure that new chemicals are reviewed and regulated, if necessary, before they go on the market, and it will improve transparency by requiring manufacturers to substantiate their claims that information should be protected as confidential business information.

These are all major improvements over current law, but this is a compromise bill. It is not the bill that Democrats would have written if we were in the majority. I understand that some of my colleagues will oppose this legislation today, and I certainly respect their position.

On the substantive side, the bill could make it harder for the EPA and citizens to use some of the tools that have proven effective under current law, including significant new use rules and citizen petitions. I would have preferred to leave those tools intact, but, hopefully, the new tools we are giving the Agency will more than make up for those changes.

We also work to reduce the role of animal testing in ensuring that chemicals in commerce are safe. While there has long been broad agreement that animal tests should be a last resort, I had concerns, as did others, that past versions of this bill would keep necessary science out of the EPA's hands.

I am pleased that the language has been improved and now states explicitly that scientific studies should not be kept from the EPA once they are done. If the studies are done, animals are not helped by keeping the data from the EPA.

Now, on the issue of preemption, which is so important to so many of my colleagues, including myself, the bill creates a significant new type of preemption which many call pause preemption.

Under the bill, States will be barred from acting when the EPA starts evaluating a chemical instead of when Federal regulations are in place. This is unprecedented and has raised significant concerns from many Members, myself included.

In recent weeks, House Democrats have secured several important changes to reduce the impact of pause preemption. Some were included in the Rules Committee print that was filed on Friday, and some were included in the manager's amendment that was filed yesterday.

I just want to briefly describe these changes.

First, we have made changes to ensure that States would have lead time and notice before EPA begins to study a chemical so that they can propose or finalize restrictions before the pause begins. Those changes particularly benefit States that act through regulation as opposed to legislation.

Second, we worked to exclude from the pause the first group of chemicals that the EPA will review. Since the EPA must begin those reviews in the next 6 months, States will not have lead time to finish their work on those chemicals. This change helps States that are currently working on restrictions for chemicals that are likely to be top EPA priorities.

Third, we were able to exclude top-priority chemicals from the pause if the manufacturer of the chemical requests EPA review. This change is complicated, but important. Without this change, manufacturers would be able to abuse the system and seek EPA review as a way to cut off a pending State action.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we clarified the scope of preemption in order to make clear that States are only preempted from regulating the uses that the EPA has studied or regulated.

In total, these changes are enough to allow me to support the bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank three of my colleagues who worked tirelessly over the last week to get these changes included in this final bill.

First is our Environment and the Economy Subcommittee ranking member, Paul Tonko. I also want to thank Leader Pelosi and our whip, Mr. Hoyer. All three of them played an integral part in strengthening the package before us today.

I am happy to support this bill to move forward with more protection for public health, for the environment, for vulnerable populations, and for vulnerable communities.

While this is a compromise bill, it is a long overdue step forward in protecting families and communities from toxic chemicals.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. DeGette), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would just inform my colleague that I have no additional speakers.

So many people have been involved on our staffs in this bill over the last several years, certainly prior to the time that I was the ranking member.

I want to, in particular, thank Jackie Cohen. Jackie is sitting here to my right. She, more than anybody else, worked on this bill and made it possible to bring this bill to fruition. I think she knows more about TSCA than anybody else I know; so, I want to thank her in particular.

I also want to thank Jean Fruci, Rick Kessler, Tuley Wright, Timia Crisp, and Alexander Ratner. From Mr. Tonko's staff, I want to thank Brendan Larkin and Clinton Britt.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century. One of the things that was so important to me in the process of negotiating this bill was that it would live up to Senator Lautenberg's legacy.

Senator Lautenberg was always a mentor to me. I worked on his first campaign back in 1982. He was always looking out for the little guy. One of the most important things to him in that respect was health and safety because he always felt that the primary function of the Federal Government was to protect people's health and safety.

One of the biggest things that was important to him was what I call the right to know. He always felt, if we passed laws that allowed people to know what they were facing in the health and environment sphere, that that would be good because they or even their organizations that they might be involved with on an activist level locally--citizen groups--would have the ability, if you will, to effectuate and carry out those laws through their own efforts.

I think one of the greatest regrets that he had was that, when you dealt with toxic chemicals over the time that he was in the Senate--he was the longest serving Senator, actually, in New Jersey history--he was never able to say what chemicals were dangerous and, basically, give people the right to know about toxic chemicals.

I think that this is an important part of his legacy, and I am very proud to say that today we can support a bill that is named in his honor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source