Opening Statement for the Honorable Michael C. Burgess, M.D.
Energy and Commerce Committee Mark-Up
Pollutants Treat; Review of Foreign Investments; Antifreeze Bittering
July 12, 2006

Mr. Chairman,

I would like to thank you for holding today's mark-up.

It is rare that this body has the opportunity to consider legislation implementing an environmental treaty that protects the environment, human health, AND the U.S. economy all at once.

As an OB/GYN, I know better than most the health threat caused by bioaccumulation of toxic substances. Who is more significantly impacted than the young of any species?

While I know that the scope of this treaty does not include FDA-regulated chemicals, and strictly deals with industrial chemicals, it is important to acknowledge that industrial chemicals can have a significant impact on human health.

Last week I had the opportunity to meet with World Health Organization officials in Geneva. When asked what they viewed as a potential emerging threat, I was surprised to hear that one of their concerns was yellow fever.

Apparently there are very few people being vaccinated against the yellow fever these days, which raises concerns that the yellow fever could come back.

The yellow fever is transmitted by a type of mosquito called the a. SGSGSGD. Still other types of mosquitoes carry Malaria and Dengue Fever and a myriad of other diseases across borders and across continents.

In fact, our August District Work period has roots in the fact that it was downright unsafe to be in the District of Columbia during the August mosquito season.

In the past, this threat was controlled by the use of DDT, a mosquito pesticide, which is now banned in the United States and listed as a Persistent Organic Pollutant under the POPs Convention.

We are fortunate in that we now have new, safer, chemicals to control the mosquito population should yellow fever or another mosquito-borne disease threaten our public health.

But this is an example of a way that this treaty could potentially limit our options when responding to a public health crisis.

I was pleased to learn that, under both the treaty and the implementing legislation before us today, the U.S. reserves the right to respond to changing situations or information that threaten domestic public health.

I would like to thank the Chairman for agreeing to include report language that makes it clear that the EPA has the authority to amend any regulation put in place under this statute restricting the use of a POP in the event that U.S. public health is severely threatened by this restriction.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I would like to just raise one further issue for the record. The sanctions for non-compliance with the Treaty have not yet been established and it concerns me that the United States is entering into the agreement without knowing these penalties. That said, in light of the fact that they have not yet been established, I believe that the United States needs to be at the table when these are discussed.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.