Congress clashes over global POPs treaty

Nearly five years after signing the Stockholm POPs Convention, the United States is once again considering implementing legislation. CIEL has prepared a new analysis of the rival bills, and will testify on behalf of ten health and environmental organizations from across the country.

Rival bills to implement the Stockholm POPs treaty will be the focus of a March 2, 2006 legislative hearing before the House Subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous Materials. At issue is whether and how the United States will take action on the world's most dangerous chemicals. Representatives Hilda Solis (D-CA) and Paul Gillmor (R-OH) have introduced bills with sharply opposing visions for how the United States should fulfill its international commitments under U.S. law. A key emerging issue could affect the rights of state and local governments to safeguard their citizens from these ubiquitous pollutants.

CIEL Senior Attorney Glenn Wiser will testify on behalf of CIEL and nine other environmental and health NGOs at Thursday's hearing, going head to head with senior Administration officials and representatives of the chemical, pesticide and utility industries. [Please see Mr. Wiser's testimony.] CIEL recently released an analysis of pending POPs bills in Congress. [Please download CIEL briefing document "U.S. Ratification of the Stockholm Convention: Analysis of Pending POPS Legislation".]

The landmark Stockholm POPs treaty has a clear mission to protect human health and the environment by eliminating or severely restricting notorious industrial chemicals, pesticides, and pollutants such as PCBs, DDT and dioxins. The treaty also has a rigorous, science-based process for adding POPs in the future. Since the original "dirty dozen" POPs are not intentionally produced in the United States, the treaty's provisions for regulating POPs that are added in the future is at the heart of the conflict in Congress.

H.R. 4800, introduced by Representative Hilda Solis (D-CA) fulfills the expectations of the American people that protecting human health should be a primary objective of U.S. environment and health law. The Solis bill gives EPA clear authority to regulate new POPs, tracks the treaty's health-based standard for decision-making, and allows states to take stronger action to protect their citizens.

The Gillmor bill (H.R. 4591) would abandon the Convention's fundamental health protection goal, introduce a cost-benefit standard that would let compliance costs trump health concerns, and create regulatory hurdles that would make it practically impossible for EPA to protect Americans from some of the world's most dangerous chemicals. The Gillmor bill would also preempt stricter state and local action on POPs.

Forty-five health and environmental NGOs representing millions of Americans sent a letter to key Congressional leaders indicating their strong support of the Solis bill (H.R. 4800) and reaffirming their commitment to ensure that the Gillmor bill is not enacted into law.

Twelve Attorneys Generals from New York to California have spoken out strongly against the Gillmor bill. "Our country did the right thing by signing the POPs treaty. It should not now stand in the way of Illinois doing the right thing to protect its citizens from these dangerous toxic pollutants," stated Illinois AG Lisa Madigan. Referring to Illinois' action on PBDEs, an important class of POPs, she added "No good can come of overturning our state's PDBE ban."

New Mexico AG Patricia Madrid noted, "It is fine for Congress to require minimum environmental protections but it is not acceptable for Congress to tell the sates we cannot do more to protect the health of our citizens." The AGs also express concern that the Gillmor bill provides no mechanism to challenge an EPA decision not to regulate a chemical that has been added to the treaty. [Please see the State Attorneys General's press release.]


For further information, please contact Daryl Ditz.