100 



Maybe Grovemment regulations under section 6 should not be the 

 centerpiece of our toxics program because uses are so varied and 

 sophisticated. But it has to be a realistic backstop when companies 

 do not live up to their responsibilities. 



For section 6 to be a credible tool, we also have to assure coordi- 

 nation among Federal agencies so that chemicals do not fall 

 through the cracks. With tne current referral process under section 

 9, it can take 7 to 10 years from the time EPA refers a chemical 

 to OSHA to the time OSHA issues a final rule. Other statutes, like 

 the Occupational Safety and Health Act, target specific problems. 

 But with TSCA's strength as a comprehensive law, encompassing 

 the whole life cycle of a chemical, it should not be relegated to serv- 

 ing as a statute of last resort. 



As I have indicated before, I intend to introduce legislation to re- 

 authorize TSCA and hopefully make it a more effective statute. I 

 have outlined some of my thoughts today and I look forward to 

 hearing from our distinguished witnesses. I want to encourage not 

 only these witnesses but anyone else affected by or interested in 

 TSCA to share with me their proposals for reforming this impor- 

 tant legislation or their concerns about suggestions I or others have 

 made. 



Although it gets little attention, I believe TSCA is a statute of 

 great potential and I intend to see that it lives up to that potential. 



Senator Reid. I would like to have entered into the record a 

 statement by Senator Lieberman, who is otherwise involved this 

 morning. 



Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, U.S. Senator from the State of 



(Connecticut 



I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on holding these hearings on the 

 reauthorization of TSCA and for your leadership in this area. I know that you will 

 be working to draft a bill before the end of this Congress and I pledge my assistance 

 in these efforts. 



TSCA is potentially one of our most far-reaching and cost effective environmental 

 laws. It could provide the tools for EPA to act through a multi-media framework 

 on preventing harm from chemicals. In a sense, TSCA could be the ultimate pollu- 

 tion prevention law. 



But there is widespread agreement that the Act is not working. And, despite the 

 importance of the Act, there has been no significant legislative effort in the last 18 

 years to change it. Reauthorization of TSCA should be one of this Committee's and 

 the Administration's top priorities next Congress. I am encouraged by the leader- 

 ship that EPA Assistant Administrator Lynn Goldman has shown in this area and 

 I look forward to working with you both on the reauthorization. 



Our experience during the last four years, Mr. Chairman, with one particularly 

 toxic chemical, lead, has led me to conclude that we must revise TSCA to ensure 

 that it does a better job in protecting public health and the environment and that 

 it provides EPA with the tools it needs to provide that protection. 



Americans are exposed to approximately 70,00 chemicals in their homes and the 

 places they. work, indoors and outdoors, knowingly and unknowingly. The great ma- 

 jority of these chemicals are harmless and are a critical part of our economy. But 

 others may have harmful health effects. TSCA was enacted to obtain more informa- 

 tion on chemicals' effects, to protect us from having additional harmful chemicals 

 introduced into our environment and to examine the risks posed by chemicals exist- 

 ing at the time the Act was adopted. Unfortunately, the record demonstrates that 

 EPA's implementation of the Act has been extremely deficient. The GAO has con- 

 cluded that "the act's authorities have not been used effectively when EPA has con- 

 sidered how to address toxic chemical concerns." According to the GAO: 



