[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 8078]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  FRANK R. LAUTENBERG CHEMICAL SAFETY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT (H.R. 
                                 2576)

                                  _____
                                 

                           HON. KEITH ELLISON

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 7, 2016

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I support the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical 
Safety for the 21st Century Act because it offers Americans meaningful 
protection from exposure to dangerous, unregulated chemicals found in 
the products we use every day. This bill represents a substantive step 
in favor of public health, but it's far from what's needed.
  Today, the status quo isn't working. Industries can release hundreds 
of chemicals each year into our homes and workplaces without any 
federal requirement to consider their safety. Researchers have linked 
chemicals used in things like household cleaners, clothing, and 
furniture, to serious illnesses like cancer, infertility, diabetes and 
Parkinson's. The current law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 
isn't up to the job. It restricts the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) from doing much of anything about these dangers. Under TSCA, only 
a small fraction of the thousands of chemicals used in our products 
have ever been reviewed for safety.
  The current law is so weak that the EPA couldn't even regulate 
asbestos. In 1989, after 10 years of research and more than 100,000 
pages of administrative record supporting action, the EPA issued a rule 
under TSCA to ban most uses of asbestos. But two years later, the EPA's 
regulation was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; while 
acknowledging that ``asbestos is a potential carcinogen at all levels 
of exposure,'' the Court ruled that the agency's administrative record 
failed to demonstrate that the regulation was the ``least burdensome 
alternative,'' as required under the law. Since the court's ruling, the 
burden to regulate most toxic substances under TSCA has been 
insurmountable.
  The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is 
an important improvement over TSCA. It would require reviews for 
chemicals in use today, mandating greater scrutiny of new chemicals, 
and removing barriers that have prevented the EPA from regulating 
highly toxic substances in the past, such as asbestos.
  This reform is necessary, but it's not adequate. The Frank R. 
Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act doesn't do everything public health and 
safety demand. Unfortunately, it bows to chemical industry, which stood 
in the way of reform for so long, in key provisions. For example, the 
chemical industry demanded and got unprecedented state preemption 
standards in the bill. It also imposes limitations on the EPA's ability 
to monitor chemicals in imported products. Federal policy should be a 
floor, not a ceiling, for public health and safety. States, like my 
Minnesota, have led the way in creating chemical safety standards that 
protect their residents. Last year in Minnesota, we took an important 
step toward protecting children and firefighters' health when the 
legislature passed a law to prohibit toxic flame retardants.
  For my part, I will continue to be an advocate for reform that 
protects public health, not special interests like the chemical 
industry.

                          ____________________