You are on page 1of 3
Wnited States Senate WASHINGTON, DC 20510 July 9, 2015 ‘The Honorable Mitch McConnell Majority Leader United States Senate Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Harry Reid Minority Leader United States Senate Washington, DC 20515 Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Reid: We are writing to you today as cosponsors of S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21° Century Act, which would provide for comprehensive reform of the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). We urge you to bring up the substitute amendment of $.697 that was reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works as soon as possible, The failure of TSCA has been heartbreakingly demonstrated over the years as it has failed to protect the public from exposure to dangerous or untested chemicals. However, over the past year, we've been encouraged by the steady progress that’s been made to craft a bipartisan proposal to overhaul TSCA so that it can finally accomplish the goal that Congress originally intended: protecting public health and the environment. We are also encouraged by the recent vote in the House of Representatives to advance a sepatate proposal for reforming TSCA. We congratulate and commend the leadership on both sides of the aisle for working their way through complicated issues and finding middle ground. The strong bipartisan support for the House’s proposal demonstrates that the time has finally come when Congress can take action this year to send the President a reform proposal he can sign into law. While they both are designed to address the fundamental flaws in the underlying statute, the House and Senate proposals differ on several key measures. As supporters of the Senate bill, ‘we feel that in several respects and overall, $.697 is a stronger and more comprehensive approach to TSCA reform. We also have a number of concems with the House approach that must be addressed. These include © Separate regulatory pathways: The House Bill creates a virtually unlimited pathway for chemicals favored for review by industry, rather than substances that pose the greatest risk to public health, to dominate the risk evaluation and regulatory process. «Insufficient funding: Under the House bill no user fees can be charged to the regulated community t0 cover even a portion of the cost of EPA- initiated safety assessments. FT * New chemicals: The House bill does not fix any of the major flaws in BPA’s new chemicals program. «Animal testing: Current law has no limitations or incentives to reduce testing on animals. The House bill does not change that. Under the Senate bill, animal testing is limited where scientifically reliable alternatives exist. © Confidential business information (CBI): While confidential business information is important to protect in many circumstances, it also must not be used to inappropriately withhold health and safety information from the public. Under the House bill there is no mandate for EPA to review past or future Confidential Business Information claims made by industry to determine validity and appropriateness of the claims. Finally, although a tremendous amount of attention has been given to the issue of State-Federal Relationship, the Congressional Research Service recently released a comparison that demonstrates that “both bills retain the general structure of preemption under TSCA.” Although the House and Senate bills take similar approaches to establishing the appropriate regulatory roles of the state and federal government, there are some key differences. There are merits and drawbacks of those differences and this is a key question that must be satisfactorily resolved for us to support a final proposal. We believe it is very possible to resolve all of these matters in a bipartisan, bicameral way, given the two bills’ similar goals and the sincere interests of Representatives and Senators to work together for the good of the entire country. As such, we believe that the best path to accomplishing the development of a final proposal that can achieve broad support in both Houses is to debate and amend the reported bill from the Senate Committee on Environment and Publie Works and then reconcile the Senate proposal with the House proposal. If this is the process that is taken, we will work cooperatively on the Senate Floor to ensure TSCA reform can move expeditiously through the Senate so the two Chambers can begin working to reconcile the differences, We stand by cager to help support progress toward this goal in any way We can. ~ LflyA Madly [cbs Nedkeuge Chui Cue Mk © Mone, DE — Mili LGptanou— ——