[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPROMISE LEGISLATION TO FULLY IMPLEMENT THE LEGAL 
    OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNDER THE STOCKHOLM 
   CONVENTION ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS, POPS, THE ROTTERDAM 
CONVENTION ON PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT, PIC, AND THE AARHUS POPS PROTOCOL 
  TO THE GENEVA CONVENTION ON LONG RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION, 
                                 LRTAP

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, December 8, 2006

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Mr. Barton and Mr. 
Gillmor in introducing this compromise version of treaty implementation 
legislation, which reflects many long hours of serious negotiation 
between our staffs.
  I entered into those negotiations because I believe it is important 
for the U.S. to be a party to these important treaties to help protect 
the global environment. This is a view shared by both the environmental 
community and the chemical industry. The U.S. ought to maintain its 
traditional leadership role in this area, first, to protect our own 
national interests and to protect our citizens from hazardous 
pollutants that circulate globally, but also to improve health and the 
environment around the world.
  The bill we are introducing today is a genuine compromise. It's not 
what I would write if I were drafting a bill alone, and it reflects 
movement by Mr. Barton and Mr. Gillmor away from their original 
vehicle, H.R. 4591. No doubt further improvements could be made to it, 
but it should serve as a marker to show the way in the next Congress. 
This bill should demonstrate that it is possible to write worthy 
implementation language without opening the ``can of worms'' involved 
in rewriting all of the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA. But the 
regulatory mechanisms created by this bill should not be seen as a 
precedent for other environmental statutes.
  Let me make one more general point before getting into the 
interpretation of specific sections: I am cosponsoring this bill 
because I believe it will enable and facilitate the regulation of 
pollutants, not stymie that regulation. Quite properly under this bill, 
the U.S. cannot be forced to regulate a chemical by any international 
body. But the bill should pave the way for the U.S. to regulate 
additional dangerous pollutants. If the processes set out in this bill 
are used primarily as barriers to regulation, then that will mean that 
the bill is being misinterpreted or abused. The bill does require 
thoughtful and thorough analysis, but that is not intended to prevent 
any regulation from moving forward.
  With that general precept in mind, let me focus on the important 
language in the new section 503(e)(1) of TSCA. The language calls for 
regulation ``to the extent necessary to protect human health and the 
environment in a manner that achieves a reasonable balance of social, 
environmental, and economic costs and benefits.'' There are two 
distinct ideas and processes encapsulated in that language. First, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is to determine whether a 
substance needs to be regulated ``to protect human health and the 
environment.'' Then, separately, it needs to determine precisely how to 
regulate that substance--i.e, the ``manner'' of regulation''--taking 
into account ``social, environmental and economic costs and benefits.'' 
I want to say this directly here to clarify language that was intended 
to make the same point in the Committee report that was filed on H.R. 
4591.

  The sponsors also want to make clear that the consideration described 
in the new section 503(e)(2)(A)(v) of TSCA is meant to direct EPA to 
consider, among other things, both the domestic and international 
benefits that would flow from U.S. regulation of a substance.
  Now let me turn to two important differences between this bill and 
H.R. 4591. First, we have entirely rewritten the new section 503(e)(4) 
of TSCA to clarify its intent, to drop the controversial and contested 
notion of ``weight of the evidence,'' and to remove any implication 
that that paragraph was creating a new legal or scientific standard of 
review. Language in the committee report on paragraph (4) does not 
apply to this bill.
  The paragraph (4) in this bill is designed primarily to ensure 
transparency by requiring EPA to describe the information that was used 
in its decision-making and the quality of the information on which the 
agency based its decision.
  Second, this bill clarifies when State preemption occurs. Section 
6(e) now makes clear that no State preemption occurs unless and until a 
regulation that has been promulgated under the new section 503 of TSCA 
has gone into effect. No action short of that and no action under any 
statute other than TSCA can trigger preemption under this bill.
  I greatly appreciate the openness the Energy and Commerce Committee 
has demonstrated during the negotiations on this bill and the courtesy 
they have extended to me and my staff. I hope this bill paves the way 
to U.S. full participation in the important treaties covered by this 
bill.

                          ____________________