“I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today and recognize our colleague, the Honorable Gary Ackerman, who will be joining us.

“Before I address this legislation, I would like to comment on a trend which concerns me. Specifically, legislation considered in this Subcommittee over the last six months has consistently preempted the rights of our states, particularly when large corporate interests find more protective state laws inconvenient.

“The same legislation has often shielded actors from liability for environmental contamination, much of which risks public health and transfers the burden of cleanup onto our communities.

“For example, on November 16, 2005, this Subcommittee held a hearing on concentrated animal feeding operations and Superfund laws. The legislation addressing this issue exempts large corporations like Tysons Food from the Superfund law.

“On March 2, 2006, this Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 4591, legislation to implement the Stockholm Convention. Just last week this legislation – including state preemption – passed this Subcommittee on a party line vote.

“And today, we are discussing H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005, which both preempts states laws AND provides a liability shield to manufacturers of antifreeze – such as Honeywell – from public health and environmental damages.

“I have long been a staunch supporter of strong laws to protect the health and well-being of people and animals.  I regularly support efforts to achieve goals such as promoting animal welfare and believe the intent behind this bill is good.  That is why I find the legislative text even more troublesome.

“I am concerned that the solution provided in this legislation does not appropriately or adequately address the problem.

“First, I question the ability of denatonium benzoate [DB] to protect animals.

“While I understand the California Integrate Waste Management Board concluded that dogs have exhibited some symptoms indicating dislike of DB upon its ingestion, the Animal Poison Control Center has reached other conclusions.

“On March 30, 2004, the Animal Poison Control Center concluded that ‘we are not aware of any well-controlled published scientific research demonstrating that dogs can be consistently protected from poisoning through the addition of taste aversive agents including DB.’

“The Animal Poison Control Center went on to express concern that ‘pet owners will have a false sense of security if products containing taste aversive substances were marketed as ‘safer’.’  I share their concern.

“The Consumer Product Safety Commission also questions the effectiveness of this bittering agent and wrote that ‘there is no evidence that denatonium benzoate or any other possible aversive agent is actually effective at limiting ingestions of consumer products.’

“I believe we need a study the effectiveness of denatonium benzoate, the bittering agent which is mandated by this bill.  As the Consumer Product Safety Commission wrote ‘the use of aversives should not be considered for regulation until the effectiveness of these substances to limit ingestion is demonstrated.’

“Second, I am concerned by conflicting reports about the impact of DB on the environment. While the California Integrate Waste Management Board has stated that DB readily degrades, several other studies indicate that it does not biodegrade like ethylene glycol.

“Environmental Defense includes DB on its list of suspected neurotoxicants and the Congressional Research Service concluded that data on toxicity and exposure are too sparse to provide a sound scientific basis for assessing the environment risk of DB.

“Finally, the EPA included in its written testimony that it has ‘not conducted a full risk assessment, nor is there available an extensive database of toxicity or environmental fate information on DB.’

“Yet, even without this information, H.R. 2567 includes a liability shield to protect the manufacturers of antifreeze from cleanup costs – leaving our communities holding the bag.

“Ultimately, I refuse to believe that the only viable solution to this problem is one that preempts our states, broadly undermines our environmental and public health protections, establishes a false sense of security for pet owners, and transfers burden of possible cleanup to our communities and water providers.

“It is only prudent to have a thorough understanding of the effectiveness of the product we would be mandating before requiring its inclusion broadly.

“I encourage my colleagues to look for solutions beyond this legislation and am willing to work with them to achieve that.”