{"id":4900,"date":"2016-03-03T15:20:36","date_gmt":"2016-03-03T20:20:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=4900"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:48","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:48","slug":"epa-and-business-find-much-to-like-in-senates-tsca-reform-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2016\/03\/03\/epa-and-business-find-much-to-like-in-senates-tsca-reform-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"EPA and business find much to like in Senate\u2019s TSCA reform bill"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/em><\/p>\n

In the last day, two news outlets, Politico<\/em> (\u201cAdministration largely sides with Senate negotiators in TSCA talks<\/a>\u201d) and CQ<\/em> (\u201cOn Toxic Chemical Bills, Administration Prefers Senate’s<\/a>\u201d), published articles about two letters recently issued on pending TSCA reform bills in the Senate and House. Both articles are well worth reading but are behind a paywall, so I\u2019m providing a brief summary and links to the letters here for those without access to these Hill publications.<\/p>\n

One letter <\/a>was signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on behalf of the Administration.\u00a0 It identifies provisions in each bill that EPA prefers or has concerns about, based on the Administration\u2019s TSCA reform principles<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The other letter <\/a>was drafted by the American Alliance for Innovation (AAI), a large coalition of business interests, which provides a list of its \u201cconference priorities.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0(While it does not directly cite either bill, it identifies provisions AAI seeks to retain in or jettison from the final bill.)<\/p>\n

These two letters are the latest in a series of comparisons of the two measures by interested parties, issued as House and Senate negotiators look to reconcile differences between them.\u00a0 We have blogged previously <\/a>on the preferences and concerns expressed by two groups of state authorities (links to their assessments are provided in that post).<\/p>\n

While the documents differ with respect to the scope of issues they address, the common characteristic of all four is that each identifies significantly more provisions they prefer in the Senate bill\u2019s more comprehensive approach, compared to House bill.<\/p>\n

Of course the goal is to get to the best law possible. EDF is confident that legislators on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers of Congress, are working hard to reach agreement on a strong bill to send to the president. The opportunity has never been so near at hand, if Congress can just finish the job.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0is a Lead Senior Scientist. In the last day, two news outlets, Politico (\u201cAdministration largely sides with Senate negotiators in TSCA talks\u201d) and CQ (\u201cOn Toxic Chemical Bills, Administration Prefers Senate’s\u201d), published articles about two letters recently issued on pending TSCA reform bills in the Senate and House. Both articles are well worth …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,114108],"tags":[56107,56109],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-4900","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-tsca","tag-lautenberg-act","tag-tsca-modernization-act"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t