[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7498-7499]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     FRANK R. LAUTENBERG CHEMICAL SAFETY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY BILL

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I also wish to spend a couple of minutes 
talking about another issue that is a relic of the Cold War era, and 
that is TSCA, the legislation that deals with toxic chemicals within 
our country.
  There was a law passed 40 years ago to deal with toxic chemicals in 
our country, but ultimately that law never worked. When we look back, 
it is like a political, environmental Edsel, still sitting in the 
garage 40 years later but not useful in protecting American families 
from the chemicals in our society--asbestos and hundreds and thousands 
of others. It is just not usable.
  Congress stands ready right now, thank God, to reform the last of the 
``core four'' environmental statutes that have yet to be modernized. I 
hope we will do so with a stronger bipartisan vote than on any major 
environmental statute in recent American history, and that we do so 
soon.
  This historic vote to comprehensively reform the Toxic Substances 
Control Act comes after years of hard work by many Senators on both 
sides of the aisle. We worked for some months to reconcile the two 
bills, and all of us were driven by the same reason. Since it was 
written four decades ago, TSCA has sat there untouched. It is a statute 
that simply does not work to protect anyone. Ever since industries 
successfully challenged EPA's proposed asbestos ban, EPA has not been 
able to effectively use the authority Congress intended it to have.
  In conference, we truly did take the best of both bills. We made sure 
EPA will have industry fees to do its chemical safety work. We made 
sure there will be enforceable deadlines for EPA to write chemical 
safety rules and for industry to comply with them. We fixed the legal 
problems in the law that caused the asbestos ban to be overturned and 
that paralyzed EPA and prevented them from regulating some extremely 
toxic chemicals. We ensured that when EPA studies a chemical, it 
considers only the environmental or health effects of that chemical, 
and that it only considers the potential cost of regulation when it is 
writing a rule to regulate it. We made sure that EPA would act more 
quickly to regulate the most dangerous chemicals, and that vulnerable 
subpopulations, such as children, pregnant women, and workers would be 
protected. We made sure the industry could not continue to improperly 
keep information about dangerous chemicals secret any longer.
  In some of the last negotiations that I helped to lead, we made sure 
that States could continue with the work they are already doing to 
protect their residents. I am particularly proud that I was able to 
protect Massachusetts's pending flame-retardant law in these last few 
key changes to the bill that were agreed to in the last few days.
  The fact that we have a bill that has the Humane Society and the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce both urging a ``yes'' vote tells you something. The 
fact that the bill is supported by the EPA, the chemical industry, many 
environmental stakeholders, and the trial lawyers tells you something 
about this bill.
  This is like a political Halley's Comet. When you have Jim Inhofe and 
David Vitter agreeing with Ed Markey on a piece of legislation, you

[[Page 7499]]

should take note of that moment in the history of passing legislation. 
That is where we are. We have something that is historic. The 
environmental bill of a generation is about to pass.
  The fact that 403 Members of the House of Representatives voted yes--
403 voted in support of this bill--tells you something. It tells you we 
rolled up our sleeves and we worked together on a bipartisan, bicameral 
basis to compromise in the way that Americans expect us to.
  I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both 
sides of the Capitol, and I look forward to watching the President sign 
this important legislation to protect the health and well-being of all 
Americans. This is a bill that does protect us from the dangers that 
Americans are exposed to--whether they are Democrats or Republicans, 
liberals or conservatives.
  This is the way the Chamber should operate. This is the way we should 
also consider nuclear warfighting policy. We should have the same kind 
of attention, the same kind of respect for the consequences for 
generations to come in our country. We should give it the same kind of 
respectful, bipartisan, bicameral attention that the public can 
understand.
  I thank the Chair for this opportunity.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________