[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 23826]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   THE INTRODUCTION OF CONSENSUS LEGISLATION TO 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. JOE BARTON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, December 8, 2006

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join Chairman Gillmor 
and Chairman Boehlert in introducing H.R. ___, consensus legislation to 
implement the legal obligations of the United States of America under 
the Stockholm, or POPs, Convention; the Rotterdam, or PIC, Convention; 
and the Aarhus POPs Protocol to the Geneva LRTAP Convention.
  This legislation represents an enormous effort that started in the 
Energy and Commerce Committee over 2 years ago to bring the United 
States into compliance with 3 multilateral chemical agreements that 
have already gone into effect. It is vitally important that the United 
States be full-fledged participants at these Conventions and this 
legislation, along with ratification by the Senate, enables us to be a 
full and active party. More importantly, it allows our country to 
contribute its vast database of knowledge on chemical substances and 
mixtures as new chemicals are added to these agreements. Without 
implementing legislation, the United States government participates at 
a level akin to that of an NGO: permitted as ``outside lobbyists,'' but 
not permitted to vote on important decisions where our expertise and 
scientific knowledge will be critical.
  How is this bill different from H.R. 4591, the bill that was reported 
favorably by the Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday, July 12, 
2006? While both bills give full, legal consideration to costs and 
benefits through a strong and transparent rulemaking procedure 
characterized by rigorous scientific analysis, the consensus bill 
eliminates the requirement to utilize a ``weight of the evidence'' 
approach in assessing risks and effects.
  This bill also clarifies concerns raised about potential state 
preemption possibilities. In accord with long-standing U.S. practice to 
not agree to new treaty obligations unless our country has the legal 
authorities in place to comply with those obligations, section 6(e) of 
this legislation provides that any Federal preemption of state laws 
cannot occur unless a rule or order implementing our obligation has 
been issued under this Act and has gone final or become effective. 
Additionally, section 2 of this bill provides that no regulation issued 
under this authority may become effective unless the United States 
consents to be bound to a treaty obligation regarding that chemical 
substance or mixture. This modification will end the misguided 
criticism of H.R. 4591 on preemption issues, while preserving and 
codifying State Department practice.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not represent an overhaul to the 
Toxic Substances Control Act, which could take years to debate. Instead 
it represents a broad consensus to enact the limited legislative fixes 
to bring the United States into full compliance with its obligations 
under these agreements, and authorizes discretion to the Environmental 
Protection Agency to regulate additional chemicals that combines a 
deferential regulatory standard with rigorous and practical sound 
scientific analysis. As decisions are currently being made that affect 
American interests, the legislation represents the responsible thing to 
do and I would urge our colleagues in both bodies to pass it as soon as 
practicable.
  Mr. Speaker, on a personal note it's my pleasure to offer our 
colleague from New York, Mr. Boehlert, my best wishes as he leaves this 
body to pursue new endeavors. His collaboration on this bill, and 
others, has had a real impact.

                          ____________________