Chemical Safety bill passes House with overwhelming support

[Garnier Fructis]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-pa...ill-1464125287

WASHINGTON—The House on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved new chemical safety rules designed to overhaul federal regulation covering thousands of chemicals in daily use, a rare bipartisan action in a year when Congress is torn by presidential politics.

Trade groups representing Dow Chemical Co., DuPont Co. and others pushed for the legislation as states, and even large retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Lowe’s Cos., and Target Corp., were stepping in with their own, sometimes far-reaching rules over concerns about chemical safety.

The bill, the first significant update to federal chemicals safety law in 40 years, is expected to be passed by the Senate as soon as this week and signed into law by President Barack Obama. It passed 403 to 12.

It gives the Environmental Protection Agency authority to evaluate and impose restrictions on chemicals used in everything from dry-cleaning to grease removal to paint thinners. In most cases, that authority preempts states from passing laws to regulate a chemical while the EPA is making its determination.

Really surprising that a Congress this polarized could vote near-unanimously on a major bill. Especially surprising is that it's a bill strengthening the EPA of all things.

The chemical companies and interest groups support this because they're losing money from cautious stores not stocking their products. Essentially, the idea is that if the EPA has actual power to control dangerous chemicals, then stores and people will have more trust in the products that do make it to the shelves.

Thoughts?

[Orlong]

This makes me angry!!! With the EPA in charge everything will be so watered down, nothing will clean a damn thing

[Pangean]

This makes me angry!!! With the EPA in charge everything will be so watered down, nothing will clean a damn thing

In the US they came for the microbeads first and I didn't speak up because I didn't use them. And then they came for oxiclean...

[Deleted]

Clearly the chemical lobby hasn't greased enough palms. It's all about who buys which politician at which point.

The content of the bill is irrelevant. It's all about whether people have been paid enough or not. There are perhaps one or two people in the whole Congress who actually represent the people. The rest are just corrupt and for sale to the highest bidder.

[alexw]

This makes me angry!!! With the EPA in charge everything will be so watered down, nothing will clean a damn thing

Yeah absolutely no surprise that Orlong once again comments on something that he doesn't have the slightest idea about. Up to now the EPA basically had no powers whatsoever to regulate chemicals that caused cancer, infertility, birth deformities, and all the rest of the gamut of negatives that can come with harmful chemicals. As a result states which didn't want to poison or harm their citizens self-regulated, but that meant each individual state had its own set of standards. Add that all up and you get massive duplication of effort, states with various different standards and a massive headache and cost overhead for companies that had to meet separate and distinct standards in each state. This is why the rules have been overhauled - because the corporate sector wanted one single set of rules covering the whole of the US that they needed to comply with, not the 50 odd they currently had.

[Nachturnal]

This makes me angry!!! With the EPA in charge everything will be so watered down, nothing will clean a damn thing

Lol, I love this guy. Such faux rage!

[Stormspellz]

I'm curious to what degree the EPA's power in this is, I'm guessing it will be on the weak side of what the states are doing.

[Garnier Fructis]

Damnit, the WSJ link I posted is now wanting me to log in to view the full thing, when I could see it earlier.

[Kraenen]

Lol, I love this guy. Such faux rage!

I felt like he was breaking character with that post.

[Garnier Fructis]

And it looks like Paul is holding it up in Congress. McConnell wanted to vote on it two days ago.

Oh well, it's still going to pass. But Paul gets to score some points with Orlong types along the way.

[Daita Tetsu]

Trade groups representing Dow Chemical Co., DuPont Co. and others pushed for the legislation as states, and even large retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Lowe’s Cos., and Target Corp., were stepping in with their own, sometimes far-reaching rules over concerns about chemical safety.

The bill, the first significant update to federal chemicals safety law in 40 years, is expected to be passed by the Senate as soon as this week and signed into law by President Barack Obama. It passed 403 to 12.

It gives the Environmental Protection Agency authority to evaluate and impose restrictions on chemicals used in everything from dry-cleaning to grease removal to paint thinners. In most cases, that authority preempts states from passing laws to regulate a chemical while the EPA is making its determination.

Since huge multi-billion dollar corporations can literally do the impossible- get an almost unanimous vote in the house.. by.. "push"ing a bill

I have to wonder with all that power and influence, how long they can keep the EPA locked in limbo "making its determination" and keeping states from passing laws to regulate their chemicals

[Garnier Fructis]

Since huge multi-billion dollar corporations can literally do the impossible- get an almost unanimous vote in the house.. by.. "push"ing a bill

I have to wonder with all that power and influence, how long they can keep the EPA locked in limbo "making its determination" and keeping states from passing laws to regulate their chemicals

Here's the relevant part from the article. BTW guys: if you put the link in google and click to the article from there, you can read the whole thing without logging in.

The bill mandates only that the EPA begin with a review of 10 chemicals and eventually have 20 chemicals under review at a time. The reviews could take several years, according to policy experts.

Some environmental and chemical safety groups pushed for more chemicals to be reviewed at a time, arguing that it will take far too long for the EPA to get through a hefty backlog at the initial rate. Still, they say, the proposed law is significant because there have been essentially no new restrictions placed on existing chemicals in decades.

“The pace is something that is disappointing,” said Andy Igrejas, a chemical safety advocate leading a coalition of health, environmental and labor organizations. “But it is still meaningful because if 20 of the worst chemicals and their public exposure were really reduced, that’s millions and millions of people potentially protected. That’s something.”

[Orlong]

Lol, I love this guy. Such faux rage!

Im truly outraged. They already took away microbeads and phosphates. Next will be lye, bleach, and anything that isnt lemon juice, vinegar, and water. Guess Ill have to resort to the black market, or buy my supplies from another country where they dont assume their citizens are stupid and will drink their cleaning supplies online

[Orlong]

Damnit, the WSJ link I posted is now wanting me to log in to view the full thing, when I could see it earlier.

You probably hit your monthly cap. I believe they only let you read 5 articles per month for free

[Deleted]

seems easy to pass this:

either people think: oh good finally the same minimum safety standards everywhere! no more states with lax laws!
or people think: oh good finally the same maximum safety standards everywhere! no more different paperwork that cost money in every state!

and then everybody probably thinks they can lobby the EPA to their advantage.

[Daerio]

Really surprising that a Congress this polarized could vote near-unanimously on a major bill. Especially surprising is that it's a bill strengthening the EPA of all things.

Yes, that is odd. Lets see if we can't figure out why...

The chemical companies and interest groups support this because they're losing money

Right. Absolutely nothing odd about it, then.

If it was a consumer protection bill, it would have been torn apart. Since it's a corporate protection effort, it passes unanimously.

[Dsc]

The problem with this is one key line.

" Its strengthening the EPA"

The EPA needs to be stripped of all unconstitutional power to DE-facto make laws, that's the Legislative branch's responsibility.
The EPA, Dept of Education, the ATF, the BLM and a slew of other little .gov bureaucratic theiftdoms need to disappear.

[nextormento]

BTW guys: if you put the link in google and click to the article from there, you can read the whole thing without logging in.

Here's an archive link. The images are stripped, but it's a nice workaround.

[Orlong]

The problem with this is one key line.

" Its strengthening the EPA"

The EPA needs to be stripped of all unconstitutional power to DE-facto make laws, that's the Legislative branch's responsibility.
The EPA, Dept of Education, the ATF, the BLM and a slew of other little .gov bureaucratic theiftdoms need to disappear.

Yep, and hopefully President Trump will disband them all!!

[Gheld]

In the US they came for the microbeads first and I didn't speak up because I didn't use them. And then they came for oxiclean...

Doesn't Garnier Fructis contain microbeads?