Mr. Chairman, over three years ago the President announced that the United States would sign the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Since then, 151 countries have signed the POPs Treaty, over 70 countries have ratified it, and the Treaty went into effect on May 17, 2004. Today, this Subcommittee is holding its first hearing on this matter.

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 bioaccumulate, that are resistant to natural breakdown, and that can be transported long distances.

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

We have had little time to review the majority discussion draft, which I understand comes on the heels of numerous meetings with the Administration to which Democratic Members and staff were not invited. Also, the Administration has not yet submitted a legislative proposal for implementing the Treaty. So I have significant concerns about the process so far.

I also have very serious concerns that the rulemaking standard and criteria contained in the discussion draft do not allow the EPA to act in an efficient manner or in a realistic and expeditious timeframe. Moreover, that standard appears nowhere in the Treaty or in existing United States law, appearing to be fodder for litigation and years of delay. And it may not properly account for public health benefits or recognize the work of the science-based international process.

Our ability to regulate additional extremely dangerous substances is not clear. We must be mindful of the EPA's experience with asbestos, a known carcinogen. The Agency spent ten years, from 1979 to 1989, doing analyses and assessments to support regulation and bans of certain uses of asbestos, but the final rule was struck down by the courts. If we cannot regulate a substance as dangerous as asbestos, our ability to regulate a 13th POP is also likely inadequate.

It has been suggested that there is insufficient United States control over this listing process, but I do not believe this is the case. The United States will participate fully in any amendment process. In addition, I understand the President intends to require an affirmative opt-in by the United States Government for each new listed chemical on top of the United States rulemaking process. Administration officials have also indicated that they would not oppose separate advice and consent by the United States Senate for each new chemical added by the Convention.

Passage of solid implementing legislation for the POPs Treaty appears readily doable, but only in the context of a full, fair and bipartisan process. This hearing is a belated first step, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.