Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE MARKUP
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE SOLIS AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 2567, THE “ANTIFREEZE BITTERING ACT OF 2005”

July 12, 2006

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Gentlewoman from California to H.R. 2567. It makes eminent good sense and allows us -- the Congress -- to have real information about the environmental risks of the chemical denatonium benzoate (DB) before we mandate it into a product.

Two years ago Honeywell and its trade association -- the Consumer Specialty Products Association -- took the very same position that this amendment directs.

Let me read to the Members the industry position in their own words from a letter dated July 19, 2004:

“In addition we believe that any additional requirements for the inclusion of bitterants in antifreeze and other [automotive products/engine coolants] should be deferred at least until such time as full toxicological, exposure and risk evaluations are publicly available for the bitterants themselves -- both as discrete chemicals, and as incorporated into automotive products. Just as our members have developed scientific profiles of their automotive products, it is important both that comprehensive scientific assessments of the bitterants be performed, and that the complete results of those assessments be made to the producers of the automotive products, to government officials, and to the general public. This has not happened to date.”

Why were Honeywell and its trade association so concerned? They wanted a comprehensive evaluation of denatonium benzoate because they had numerous studies showing it could adversely affect the environment and drinking water supplies. The president of the trade association stated publicly in a letter to a New Mexico newspaper:

“Not only is the effectiveness of mandating the use of a bittering agent in antifreeze questionable, there are also concerns about the impact of denatonium benzoate on the environment. Independent scientific studies have determined that DB does not biodegrade and is not removed during the processes used to treat wastewater at publicly owned treatment facilities. If poured onto the ground, DB could contaminate ground water, potentially threatening public drinking water.”

This is a direct warning from the industry that the Committee should heed by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to do a comprehensive evaluation of DB. Less than two weeks ago Prestone and the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the industry association, informed the Committee that they have sought additional information on the transport and environmental fate of DB but have not received such data from DB manufacturers.

So we find ourselves today with numerous studies showing there are environmental problems with DB and no comprehensive study to show it is safe as the industry requested. Instead of getting the necessary and critical scientific information on the chemical, we are shifting the cost of drinking water contamination to ratepayers and groundwater polluted by DB to the ranchers and farmers who might use the water for irrigation or livestock. I doubt they will appreciate having to bring costly litigation against the foreign manufacturers of DB.

Let’s get the facts first before we mandate the use of DB – not the other way around. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

- 30 -

(Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-3641)