Frank Pallone

I hope we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure EPA is meeting its statutory obligations.

The Trump EPA's attack on workers goes beyond its refusal to properly implement TSCA.

It is long past time that we banned this dangerous substance which continues to kill American workers.

Because of these actions, I have lost confidence in EPA's ability to implement this law and ban asbestos.

Clearly, our track record of protecting workers is appalling.

Explicit worker protections are so essential because workers bear the brunt of chemical exposures and harm.

One of the most important protections included in that bill, from my perspective, was the new requirement that EPA ensure protection for vulnerable populations, including infants, pregnant women, environmental justice communities, and…

Today, we are here to continue this committee's critical oversight work of the Trump administration by reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency's mismanagement of chemical risks and its harmful impacts on America's workers.

I always like optimism.

But it is not a ban. It doesn't apply to any ongoing uses.

It is very serious as a threat to workers across the economy and we have known about its dangers for decades.

Clearly, we have some differences of opinion on the panel between the chemical industry lawyer and the impacted workers.

I am proud of my former agency but it is overmatched and unable to reduce unreasonable risks.

Many of EPA's actions and inactions over the last two years are contrary to the plain meaning of the law, arbitrary, and unscientific.

I am particularly concerned about making sure we have new chemicals vetted quickly because they may be more effective and efficient and safe.

We need to find out why this takes so long, make sure that they focus on defining whether a chemical is safe or not safe.

As one of the authors and supporters of the TSCA reform bill, we want it to work because we want it to protect--we want the EPA to do due diligence on the science of the chemicals.

I just want to mention again that the BLOCKING Act is a perfect example of us working in a bipartisan fashion.

When the REMs program was put into place as part of the Food and Drug Administration Amendment Act of 2Congress contemplated and ultimately made it explicit that these safety protocols should not be use as a means to delay generic…

Regrettably, while Republicans share the goal of today's hearing--and we do--and some of these bills have bipartisan cosponsorship, and we do want to lower the cost of prescription drugs--we wish it were more inclusive.

The bipartisan law has lowered the cost of important medications and devices. It has sped up how medical innovations come to fruition, and this is a win for consumers.

This law helps incentivize the entrance of competitive, generic drugs--I agree with the chairman, generics really matter--where there was a lack of competition in the marketplace, resulting in ability to decrease cost to consumers, and as…

The proposals before us today will close loopholes that some drug companies are exploiting to game the system.

These numbers alone demonstrate the substantial cost savings for consumers when we ensure generic products can come to market as soon as possible.

I believe reducing barriers to generic drugs and increasing competition in the pharmaceutical market will benefit American families.