[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8002-8003]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      FRANK R. LAUTENBERG CHEMICAL SAFETY FOR THE 21st CENTURY ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate's final passage today of the 
bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century 
Act, after 3

[[Page 8003]]

years of difficult negotiations, reflects the true nature of 
compromise. I am glad that we have finally come to an agreement to 
update our country's ineffective and outdated chemical regulatory 
program. While this is not a perfect bill, I believe that it goes a 
long way towards protecting American families from dangerous chemicals 
and serves as a fitting tribute to Senator Lautenberg, who was a 
tireless public health advocate.
  This legislation overhauls the 40-year-old, outdated Toxic Substances 
Control Act and will bring more than 64,000 chemicals under the review 
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Under the old law, 
the EPA was required to approve chemicals using a burdensome and 
ineffective economic cost-benefit analysis, but this reform bill will 
require the EPA to make a decision based solely? on health and safety 
concerns. Additionally, the Lautenberg act gives the EPA enhanced 
authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals, 
requiring safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerce and a 
safety finding for new chemicals before they are allowed on the market.
  The House bill originally included a provision preempting State 
authority to regulate specific chemicals. State preemption is a 
significant concern for Vermont, especially with the discovery of 
perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA, contaminated water in the communities of 
North Bennington and Pownal. Unfortunately, due to shortcomings in the 
1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, PFOA was one of many chemicals that 
had been presumed safe without any requirement for testing or review. 
While the inclusion of even minimal State preemption action in the 
final bill is unfortunate, the final compromise largely retains the 
Senate bill's provisions and allows States 12 to 18 months to enact 
tougher regulations through a waiver process after the EPA formally 
announces that it has started the review process for a chemical. There 
have been assurances to the Vermont congressional delegation from the 
EPA that Vermont will be able to retain its more stringent regulation 
of PFOA. I will continue to work with both the State and with the EPA 
to address PFOA contamination in Vermont.
  I am pleased that the final bill includes two mercury-specific 
provisions: The creation of a mercury inventory and the expansion of 
the export ban to certain mercury compounds. These provisions are 
sections of the Mercury Use Reduction Act that I was proud to cosponsor 
in the 112th Congress. Under the mercury inventory provision, the EPA 
will be required to prepare an inventory of mercury supply, use, and 
trade in the United States every 3 years. This data will enhance our 
ability to reduce the health risks from mercury exposure. The second 
mercury provision builds upon the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, 
expanding the export ban currently in effect for elemental mercury to 
include certain mercury compounds that could be traded to produce 
elemental mercury in commercial quantities, thus undermining the 
existing export ban.
  This reform bill also includes new unprecedented transparency 
measures thanks to new limits imposed on what can qualify as 
``confidential business information.'' The transparency provisions also 
ensure that State officials, medical professionals, and the public have 
access to health and safety information. In addition, the bill places 
time limits and requires justification for any ``confidential business 
information'' claims that must also be fully justified when made and 
will expire after 10 years if they are not re-substantiated.
  Like many Vermonters, I have been concerned for years about the need 
to improve chemical safety standards in the United States. While I had 
hope for more reforms in the bill, overall, the bill is a significant 
improvement over current law. It is a true testament to the groundwork 
laid by Senator Lautenberg that we have finally heeded the calls from 
the American people to reform this outdated law and better protect our 
families from dangerous chemicals.

                          ____________________