[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 103 (Thursday, June 25, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E979]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     TSCA MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 23, 2015

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, our country's federal toxic chemicals 
regulation has been broken for decades. Since Congress first passed the 
Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976, the EPA has placed restrictions 
on only five of the estimated 60,000 chemicals in commerce, and since 
the EPA's ban on asbestos was overturned in 1991, zero chemicals have 
been regulated. This law is in dire need of reform.
  While toxic chemicals regulations have floundered for decades at the 
federal level, California and several other states have passed 
important laws to protect communities and notify consumers. These state 
laws, including California's landmark Proposition 65, have motivated 
many companies to reduce or eliminate toxic chemicals from their 
products.
  It was with these state laws in mind that I offered an amendment at 
the Energy & Commerce Committee markup of this legislation to clarify 
its impact on state laws. My amendment was based on the recommendations 
of 12 State Attorneys General who wrote to the Committee: California, 
New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Iowa, Oregon, Maryland, Vermont, 
Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire.
  I'm pleased that the final version of the bill before us today, as 
well as the Committee Report on the bill and the Congressional Record, 
addresses several of the issues I raised along with the 12 Attorneys 
General who wrote to the Committee with their concerns.
  First, the final text of the bill includes my amendment's 
clarification to ensure states can continue to enforce existing laws 
unless specifically preempted. Without this change, the bill could have 
been interpreted to only grandfather ongoing enforcement actions, 
rather than all existing state laws and regulations.
  Second, the sponsor of the bill, my good friend Mr. Shimkus of 
Illinois, clarified in a colloquy with me that no existing state laws 
or requirements will be preempted by this bill unless they actually 
conflict with federal requirements. Mr. Shimkus also confirmed on the 
Record that the bill is not intended to interfere with the operation of 
Proposition 65 or the ability of the State of California or private 
citizens to enforce that landmark law.
  Third, the multi-state Attorney General letter called for further 
clarification that the bill is not intended to preempt state 
monitoring, information reporting, and disclosure laws. These important 
laws help keep regulators and communities informed about the presence 
of toxic chemicals. I'm pleased that the Committee Report states that 
``the Committee expects that these type of requirements would generally 
fall outside the scope of preemption.''
  With these important changes and clarifications, the preemption and 
savings provisions in the TSCA Modernization Act are substantially 
improved and I appreciate the willingness of Chairmen Upton and Shimkus 
to make these improvements to the bill.
  The TSCA law is long overdue for reform and with the above changes 
included in the TSCA Modernization Act, I support it and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.

                          ____________________