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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HEARING ENTITLED “LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT
THE POPs, PIC, AND LRTAP POPs AGREEMENTS”

March 2, 2006

Almost five years ago the President announced that the United States would sign the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants called POPs, which had been negotiated under his predecessor, President Clinton. The Administration has yet to submit in this or the previous Congress a legislative proposal for implementing the treaty with respect to chemicals. Nor has any Congressional Committee reported any legislation this Congress.

All of the 12 POPs chemicals listed in the treaty, known as “the dirty dozen,” are already banned or tightly controlled in the United States. These are some of the most dangerous chemicals known to man and include such infamous substances as DDT, PCBs, and dioxins.

The POPs Convention created a science-based procedure that will govern the inclusion of additional chemicals to the Convention, and defines the criteria that must be met. These criteria focus on substances that are toxic, that build up in the body and are resistant to natural breakdown, and that can be transported long distances.

The task now before the Congress is to provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with rulemaking authority and a regulatory standard that allows it to promptly implement the control measures recommended by the Conference of the Parties for a new chemical, sometimes called “the 13th POP.” The implementing legislation must allow the EPA to proceed in an efficient and expeditious manner using the results of the science-based international process. And I want to stress that this is a science-based process.

The ability of EPA to regulate additional extremely dangerous substances is unclear. We must be mindful of a recent example: EPA’s experience with asbestos, a known carcinogen. The Nation saw EPA spend a decade — from 1979 to 1989 — doing analyses and assessments to support regulation to ban certain uses of asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act. I should note that the final rule was struck down by the courts. If we cannot regulate a substance as dangerous as asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act, our ability to regulate a 13th POP also appears to be inadequate and should be the matter of bipartisan discussions and consideration in the legislation.

Today’s Subcommittee hearing focuses on two legislative proposals — H.R. 4591 introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Gillmor and H.R. 4800 introduced by our Ranking Subcommittee Member Hilda Solis.

Chairman Gillmor’s bill, H.R. 4591, incorporates the concepts of Toxic Substance Control Act and adds additional criteria. I have serious concerns that the rulemaking standard and the criteria contained in H.R. 4591 would not allow the EPA to act in an efficient manner in a realistic and expeditious timeframe. Moreover, that standard appears nowhere in the treaty or in existing United States law. I find this standard problematic as it poses an opportunity for litigation and years of delay. It also may not properly account for public health benefits nor recognize the work of the science-based international processes.

In contrast, the Solis bill, H.R. 4800, would require EPA to use a health-based standard and would allow expeditious action. H.R. 4800 is careful to preserve United States sovereignty by providing that no regulation may go into effect until the President has exercised his opt-in authority. I commend Ranking Member Solis for her hard work and for this excellent bill.

This hearing also provides the Administration with the opportunity to clarify whether it believes that the Senate must formally consent to each new chemical added by the Convention. Such a requirement would most likely lead to further delay in implementation of control measures adopted by the POPs Convention.

Mr. Chairman, this Committee has a history of approaching successful environmental legislation in a bipartisan fashion. This approach in the past has offered a process satisfactory to all Members, to outside interests, and to the broad public interest. It is my hope that such an approach will be followed here.

I thank the witnesses for appearing today, and I look forward to their testimony.

- 30 -

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