Ed Markey

To add another 7 years, when we already know what the problem is, to tie the hands of the EPA, really in my opinion is unnecessary.

The EPA already attempted to ban asbestos but was challenged by industry, and the ban was struck down by the court.

But this is no ordinary trial, because the chemical that is the perpetrator is not in custody and protected from harming the public.

This is an alternative way of dealing with the asbestos issue without naming asbestos or any dangerous chemicals.

Disclosure of funding relationships leads to the open debate that is necessary for responsible rulemaking.

Instead of enabling the EPA to keep improving the clean air and water protections that benefit all of us, this bill protects polluters.

What Senator Boxer's amendment does is to say that these disease clusters must be more quickly identified and investigated so that they are dealt with.

I am also very gratified that my request to change or remove the so called unreasonable risk language in TSCA was also included.

I urge my colleagues to support this simple, straightforward and incredibly important amendment.

Why waste time and money when the most renowned scientific bodies in the world have already determined that something causes cancer?

Under my amendment, chemicals which have already been deemed by EPA to be worthy of further assessment and have also been deemed as a carcinogen by either the National Institutes of Health or the National Academies of Science or the World…

What Senator Gillibrand's amendment does is to retain the authority--to ensure that the States are there as they have historically been.

My amendment very simply would preserve States' rights.

We have more than 50 years of data on asbestos, and the harms it causes to human health, including lung cancer and mesothelioma.

It is time for us to act.

If this bill was law in 2011, it would have prohibited any of the individual States from taking any action.

The safety risks and hazards of asbestos are well known.

No State should be prevented from acting in the best interest of its people.

I particularly appreciate the efforts to include that language, which I thought would make it easier for States to get their requests approved.

I also think that we should be specifically adding some trade capacity building and trade facilitation provisions.

I think we should authorize the MCC to enter into regional compacts.

It is important that we also consider ways that greater two-way trade with the region, particularly with developed countries, establish reciprocal agreements with key markets such as South Africa.

I support the long-term reauthorization of AGOA, and I am pleased to see that the Finance Committee has made real progress on an at least 10-year authorization.

What is and can AGOA do to ensure that there are better environmental standards that do protect the long-term natural resources of each of these countries?

Power Africa can play a role there.