tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN May 24, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of resolution -- the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor by voting by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. ed in [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
without objection -- without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the house resolution 742 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 117, house resolution 742, resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 2576, to to modernize the toxic substances control act, and for other purposes, with the senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the house, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the committee on -- and nd commerce or oviding the h.r. 797, to clarify congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near
navigable waters and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
ayes have it. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5077 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5077, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for intelligence and intelligence related activities of the united states government, the community managements account, and the central intelligence agency retirements and disability system, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.
for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, seek recognition? mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask that he can that the question of adopting a motion to concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 2576 with an amendment may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, seek recognition? mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. pursuant to house resolution 742, i call up the bill h.r. 2576, with the senate amendment thereto and i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill, designate the senate amendment and designate the motion. -- clerk: h.r. 2576, an act
mr. shimkus asks the house concur in the senate amendment with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the motion shall be debatable for one hour controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the energy committee on commerce. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. mr. shimkus: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks. and insert extraneous material on h.r. 2576. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. shimkus: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2576, the frank r. lawedenberg chemical safety for the 21st century act, a
bipartisan, bicameral bill to update the way our nation assesses and manages the risks posed by chemicals and the products that contain them. this is a sweeping legislation, mr. speaker, with monumental benefits for virtually every man, woman and child in the united states. the culmination of a multiyear, multicongress effort. this legislation on the floor today will mark the first consequential update of the toxic substance control act, or tsca, in 40 years. mr. speaker, i talked to a graduation event over the weekend and i said this in the rules committee last night. in 1976 i was graduating high school. at was the year we had plaid bellbottoms, silk shoes and i had an afro. it was not a pretty sight. much like the bill, the toxic substances control act, well-intentioned, was not a pretty sight. when tsca was enacted in 1976, it was not meant to examine all
chemical manufacturing and uses but rather to create a backstop of protection when potential dangers were otherwise not being addressed. in the nearly 40 decades since then, concerns have mounted over the pace of e.p.a.'s evaluation of chemicals, the ability of the agency to use its existing authority and whether the law permits certain regulatory actions. in short, mr. speaker, there is a widespread acknowledgment and understandable concern that nobody's well served by the current law. this absence of a workable standard has also fostered a patchwork of state regulations. while well-intentioned, these state actions have ultimately led to public confusion and a marketplace that has become increasingly uneven, unpredictable and incompatible with economic and regulatory realitied. to stem the tide of uncertainty and protect americans in every state, almost one year ago this
chamber passed to bring tsca into the 21st century by an overwhelming 391-1 vote -- 298-1 vote. six months later, our friends in the other body moved their own package of bipartisan tsca reforms. while both efforts were broadly supported, the house and senate bills were quite different in size and scope. these differences left many issues that needed to be resolved, requiring many hours of complex discussions and difficult decisions to get us where we are today. the end result of that work is vast improvement over current law and a careful compromise that's good for consumers, good or jobs and good for the environment. so what does this actually do? the bill gives e.p.a. more direct rules to obtaining testing information on chemical substance, an improvement over the lengthy process they now face. it restructures the way existing chemicals are evaluate nd having a scientific
guideline. trade secrets submitted to e.p.a., ensures the agencies uses only high-quality science in their decisionmaking. it updates the collection of fees needed to support e.p.a.'s implementation of tsca and finally, it organizes the federal-state regulatory relationship in a way that helps global commerce. an action already taken by the states. i ask my colleagues to support this landmark legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this after the named late senator frank r. lautenberg of new jersey, a friend of mine. the toxic substances control act, or tsca, has not been
updated since it was updated 40 years ago. for decades we have known that the law is broken so this legislation is long past due. and i hope it will soon become law. had the law worked effectively from the beginning we would not have b.p.a. in baby bottles or toxic flame retardants in our children's pajamas and in our living room couches. and exposure to asbestos decades ago. and let me stress the last point. in 1989, after more than 10 years of study and analysis, e.p.a. banned asbestos under tsca but the court overturned it because of serious limitations on e.p.a.'s authority. that court decision came down 25 years ago. imagine the lives that could have been saved and the injuries that could have been prevented if that ban had stood. now, reforming this law is about preventing injuries and saving lives. it's about protecting vulnerable populations -- infaints fants, elderly,
communities that are exposed to toxic kemskemcals. it's about getting dangerous chemicals like lead, mercury out of our consumers products, out of commerce and out of the environment. mr. speaker, the bill before us today is a step forward in reaching this important geel. and let me briefly describe some of the improvements. this bill will make it easier for e.p.a. to require testing of chemicals by allowing them to act through orders instead of rulemaking. it will also make it easier for e.p.a. to regulate chemicals by removing procedural hurdles in current law and providing more resources through user fees. it will ensure that new chemicals are reviewed and regulated if necessary before they go on the market. and it will improve transparency by requiring manufacturers to substantiate their claims that information should be protected as confidential business information. these are all major improvements over current law. but this is a compromised bill. it's not the bill democrats
would have written if we were in the majority, and i understand that some of my colleagues will oppose this legislation today, and i certainly respect their position. on the substances side, the bill could make it harder for e.p.a. and citizens to use some of the tools that have proven effective under current law, including significant new use rules and citizen petitions. i would have preferred to leave those tools intact but hopefully the new tools we are giving the agency will more than make up for those changes. we also worked to reduce the role of animal testing and ensuring that chemicals in commerce is safe. while there's been broad agreement that animal testing should be the last, we should keep necessary skinse science out of e.p.a.'s hands. i'm pleased the language has been improved and new states ex-- and now states explicitly that scientific studies should not be kept from e.p.a. once they are done. if the studies are done, nimals are not held by keeping
the data from the e.p.a. and pres empings, which is important to my colleagues and myself, the bill has a new time of preemption which many cause pause preemption. states will be barred from acting when e.p.a. starts evaluating a chemical instead of when federal regulations are in place. this is unprecedented and has raised significant concerns from -- for many members, myself included. in recent weeks, house democrats have included certainly several important changes for pause preemption. somewhere included in the rules committee print that was filed on friday and some were included in the manager's amendment that was filed yesterday and i want to briefly describe these changes. first, we made chakes to ensure the states -- changes to ensure states would have leave time and notice before e.p.a. begins to study a chemical so they can propose or finalize restrictions before the pause begins. those changes particularly benefit states that act through regulation as opposed to legislation. second, we worked to exclude
from the pause the first group of chemicals e.p.a. will review. since e.p.a. must combin those reviews in the next -- begin those reviews in the next six months, they won't have leave time. they will help states whoa are currently working -- who are currently working on restrictions for chemicals that will be top e.p.a. priorities. third, we have excluded top chemicals from the pause. and this change is complicated but important. without this change manufacturers will be able to abuse the system and seek e.p.a. review as a way to cut off a pending state action. and finally, mr. speaker, we clarify the scope of preemption in order to make clear that states are only preempted from regulating the uses e.p.a. has studied or regulated. in total, these changes are enough to allow me to support the bill. so mr. speaker, i want to thank three of my colleagues who worked tirelessly over the last week to get these changes included in this final bill. first, our environmental subcommittee ranking member,
paul tonko. i also want to thank leader pelosi and our whip hoyer. all three of them played an integral part in strengthening the package before us today. and i'm happy to support this bill to move forward with more protection for public health, for the environment, for vulnerable populations and for vulnerable communities. while this is a compromised bill, it is a long overdue step forward in protecting families and communities from toxic chemicals. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i recognize now the chairman of the full committee, mr. upton, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: well, thank you, mr. speaker. you know, today really does mark a milestone. a milestone for a majority, a milestone for this congress and a milestone for the american people as we make great strides to update our nation's chemical safety laws. folks said it could not be done, especially with the republicans in congress and a democratic president. this was a multiyear effort
that dates back to at least the last congress. but we took the time. we did the hard work. we put in countless hours, discussions, negotiations, virtually every weekend and it paid off. this legislation will have monumental impacts for commerce, the environment and public health. 1976 under the leadership of michigan's great president jerry ford, tsca was a novel approach to regulating interstate commercial activity to address unreasonable risks presented by a chemical. it was not meant to examine every piece of chemical manufactured but rather provide a backstop of protection when suspicious -- when suspicions about dangerous chemicals were not being addressed. in the nearly 40 years since tsca's enactment, there have been persistent concerns about the pace of e.p.a.'s work on chemicals, the ability of the agency to meaningfully use its
existing authority and whether the statute prevents certain regulatory efforts. over the last three years, the house energy and commerce committee has conducted nine hearings, all on the aspects of tsca. we learned there's a public confusion about chemicals specific safety claims. we learned that people think e.p.a. should clear up that confusion and be more diligent on risky chemicals. and finally, we learned companies and workers were disadvantaged in a domestic and global marketplace where conflicting regulatory standards indeed hamper trade. within the last decade, a variety of factors, including e.p.a.'s slow pace in regulating chemicals already on the market have led to several new state chemical control statutes. some states passed laws ranging from specific chemical restrictions to general chemical labeling requirements like prop 65 in california. meanwhile, some retailers have called out for objective scientific assessment of
chemicals in consumer products. almost a year ago, our committee unanimously reported this bill and the house passed . 398-1 in december the senate approved a package of tsca reforms. the senate's bill was quite different from the house, but the compromised agreement, this one includes many of the senate policy details. the resolution before us gives e.p.a. more direct tools in obtaining testing information on chemical substances, specifying key points in evaluation and regulatory process for e.p.a. may order testing. in addition, the compromised text reduces animal testing required under tsca. it restructures the way existing chemicals are evaluated and regulated. the bill clarifies the treatment of trade secrets submitted to e.p.a. the resolution -- could have i two additional minutes? mr. shimkus: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two
minutes. mr. upton: the resolution specifies that they must protect trade secrets for a renewable period of 10 years. the resolution also creates a new system to claim, substantiate and resubstantiate and rejude indicate for the protection of trade secrets. finally, it organizes the federal-state regulatory relationship in a way that makes sense for promoting interstate and global commerce but also recognize the efforts taken by a number of states. the amendment makes accommodations for some existing state requirements and today, we have a landmark, bipartisan, bicameral agreement. the resolution is supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders arranging from environmental and public health groups to large and small industrial organizations. it is worthy of every member's support. i want to say a word of thanks
to my colleagues. frank pallone and paul tonko. i know the last couple of weeks ave not exactly been a picnic. but you know that this is a better bill because of your involvement. but the real thing behind this whole project is john shimkus, what a guy. without his leadership we never would have reached this point. i thank the dedicated and hardworking staff that got us to where we are today, david, tina and chris, thank you all. at times it may not have been a labor of love, but we have a finished product that will make a difference. this bill is good for jobs, it's good for the consumers. it's good for the environment, the most meaningful and impactful to update the issues.
and soon it will be law. the president will sign it. grateful to the legislative achievement that we can be proud of. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield six minutes to the gentleman from new york, the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for six minutes. mr. tonko: i thank the gentleman from new jersey for yielding. it is with regret i must stand here in opposition to this bill. we have negotiated in good faith for many months to try to reach an agreement to fix e.p.a.'s chemical program. and while there are some positive aspects of this bill, i believe it falls short. before i go into detail about my concerns, i want to express my appreciation for the work that has been done by the majority and minority colleagues on the
energy and commerce committee and commend the staff with whom i worked closely on the minority side. as we just heard from the chairman, the senate passed a version in december of last year after we had voted near unanimously to support our version of a bill. there are improvements over the bill passed by the senate. in some ways, this bill will improve current law. e.p.a. gains new authorities and resources. the regulatory bar to testing is lower allowing e.p.a. to acquire more information about chemicals and the least burdensome standard that has prevented e.p.a. from regulating chemicals even when there was harm was removed. one of our top priorities expediting the review of p.d.t.'s was largely retained and the bill required e.p.a. to
consider the most vulnerable population. but for every positive step to protect the public health and the environment, there are numerous steps back that undermine those goals. for example, this bill weakens one of the few parts of tsca as it stands today that actually works. significant new rules. e.p.a. can require companies to provide new uses of a chemical before the company can manufacture or import it. it should not necessarily be in consumer products. this bill would make it more difficult to require notification and therefore to track chemicals being used in new ways or in imported products. also, there is language on a negotiated rulemaking to limit reporting requirements for inorganic byproducts, a concept that wasn't in either bill but is stuck in this version somehow. the section represents an
improvement over the senate bill, but i still have concerns. this is just one of a number of seemingly benign provisions that are included to create loopholes that undermine the public health and environmental protection goals of tsca. the bill retains the prioritization process that duplicates the work e.p.a. has done already to identify chemicals of concern and place them on the work plan. and finally, there has been a lot of talk about the preemption section. currently, states are able to restrict the chemical unless e.p.a. decides to impose its own restriction. preemption has often not been an issue. but states today, today, have a number of options when it does happen. they can co-enforce restrictions, apply for a waiver or ban a chemical. under this bill, states lose those rights to ban the chemical. and waiver would be more difficult to obtain than under
current law. without a working federal program, it has fallen upon states to lead the fight to get the most harmful chemicals out of commerce and they have proven to be successful. they have been the champions, the driving force. i understand that there are members from states that have not acted to regulate chemicals. please do not think this provision doesn't apply to you as well. when states are able to act aggressively as they have, they can move industry and move e.p.a. to act which benefits our entire nation. unfortunately, this bill includes provisions that would severely inhibit states' ability to act. in january, 14 states' attorneys general expressed their concerns with the preemption section. those concerns were reiterated last week by seven states environmental commissioners. it has become known as pause
preemption. during the pause period when e.p.a. is evaluating a chemical, up to 3.5 years, states are prohibited from acting. last year house-passed version did not, did not include the pause. while we accepted that states would be preempted when e.p.a. makes a determination about a chemical's risk, it would be unprecedented to prevent a state from acting before then. overall and the senate state preemption framework is largely unchanged. we know a deal was struck in the senate a few weeks ago, but i believe it is more accurate to call it a deal on prirtization not preemption because e.p.a. would have to spend more time going through the necessary process. during this new window of time states could rush to try to act before the pause kicks in. we have heard from a number of states that acts by legislative
action than regulation. they said 12-18 months is not sufficient. the reality is in most cases, states will not have enough opportunity to protect their citizens from harmful chemicals during the years it could take for e.p.a. to do its own evaluation. let us call the pause exactly what it is, unnecessary and precedent setting. it may be decades before we see the health benefits of this bill, but it may be a matter of time that prevent state regulation before a final federal agency action. will we rule the day that we gave a nod of approval to the pause preemption concept. it is a terrible policy and should not encourage it. it opens the door to dangerous precedent. the core intention is the balance of federal authorities and new restrictions on states. i do not believe the modest
improvements to the federal program not to mention the carveouts to certain industries which are unnecessarily broad, are sufficiently positive to warrant these new restrictions. you have heard during this debate that our system is broken and that the improvements of which there are some are better than nothing, which is what we have now for existing chemicals. but better than nothing is a very low bar. i think we can and should do better. the public deserves better. i have no doubt that people on both sides of this debate genuinely want to ensure that people are protected from dangerous and toxic chemicals. i do not begrudge my colleagues who choose to support. but this bill is not without its flaws or controversy. we must have a strong national chemical program to protect american families and workers but the states and -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. tonko: ultimately, i'm not
onvinced that the program that ll justify the unprecedented -- mr. pallone: i yield 30 seconds. mr. tonko: i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i yield to the the gentlewoman from tennessee for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: i rise in support to the amendments of h.r. bill and i congratulate chairman shimkus on the job he has done and request to enter into a brief colloquy. mr. shimkus: i would be happy to. mrs. blackburn: it is my understanding that this bill re-emphasizes congress intent to avoid duplicative legislation e.p.a.ries two important
constraints while adding a new important provision that would be found as a new section, 9-b-2. it is my understanding as a unified whole, this language old and new limits the e.p.a.'s ability to promulgate a rule under section 6 of tsca to restrict or eliminate the use of a chemical when the agency either already regulates that chemical through a different statute under its own control and that authority sufficiently protects against risk of the injury to human health or the environment or a different agency already regulates that chemical in a manner that also sufficiently protects against the risk identified by e.p.a. would the chairman please confirm my understanding of section 9. mr. shimkus: the gentlelady is correct in her understanding. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. the changes you worked hard to preserve in this negotiated bill are important and as the e.p.a.'s early stage efforts to tsca te chemicals under
section 6 are also timely. e.p.a. has to account why new gulation for t.c.e. is necessary since its own existing regulatory framework already appropriately addressed risk to human health. new section will force the agency to do just that. i thank the chairman for his good work and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: the starting point for analysis is the current law. the current law is a mess. it's the wild west when it comes to regulating chemicals. 85,000 chemicals are on the market that have never been tested and bad things are going to happen. this law changes that.
the e.p.a. is now going to have authority to regulate and review these substances as to their health and safety. number two, it requires the safety finding before a new product goes on the market. number three, it replaces the cost benefit analysis for a health-only analysis and when it comes to health and safety, that is absolutely essential. it's not about the cost, the cost in human terms and to communities when you have let something go by for accounting reasons as opposed to look vigilantly at health and safety is not the way to go. very good change. next, it protects vulnerable populations, children, pregnant women and especially workers who are in plants where these chemicals are used. and lastly, makes the companies come clean with the information they have that allows regulators to come to a conclusion. the preemption is a concern. vermont, we have had a very
active republican and democratic governor and natural resource secretary and very active attorney general. they are concerned. but there is in this legislation flexibility so vermont is going to continue to have the ability to act to protect its citizens and i'm confident they will. if the e.p.a. is going to put a product on the list, we are going to get a heads up in vermont of about nine months and i have confidence in the vermont general assembly and the governor and attorney general and agency of natural resources to protect the public health and public safety. no law is perfect, but you know, in this institution, we have had a hard time passing laws. i thank all the people who have been involved and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker.
i would like to recognize my colleague from north carolina for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pittenger: i appreciate your efforts leading a bipartisan effort to reform u.s. chemical safety law that has been decades in the making. i thank you for securing amendments to section 9 of the tsca law to remain in the negotiated text. these amendments will strengthen congress' intent that will be the last resort of a chemical with another authority under e.p.a.'s jurisdiction or another federal agency or any regulator in the risk identified by e.p.a. . they make clear that e.p.a. may not promulgate a rule to restrict use of a chemical when, number one they regulate that chemical under a different
statute under its own control like the clean air act and if the authority sufficiently protects against risk of injury to human health or the environment, or number two, a different agency already regulates that chemical in a manner that also protects against the risks identified by e.p.a. in light of yet another regulatory overreach this new amendment to section 9 of tsca are a welcome reform with the intent that it will help restrain the agency's unnecessary activities. these are common sense but important protections given when e.p.a. is likely to pursue. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is ecognized. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: i rise in support of
h.r. 2976, the tsca modernization act. this bipartisan, bicameral legislation to reform our broken chemical safety law for the first time since 1976 and directly address tsca's fundamental flaws. this legislation is a win-win for our district in east houston and harris county, texas, home to one of the -- one of the largest collection of chemical facilities in the country. the reforms contained in this proposal, with the communities next to these facilities an benefit chemical manufacturers who have certainty in a true nationwide market. congress has worked on reforming tsca for over a decade. i've personally been working on fixing it since 2008. though not perfect the proposal before the house today is in the words of the obama administration, a clear improvement over current tsca and represents a clear
advancement for chemical safety and environmental law. let me quote this from the steelworkers, the tsca modernization act dent result in a bill they would have written, however, there are significant improvements over the current law, including the 1991 asbestos decision that crippled the agency's ability to act. e.p.a. must use a health only standard to evaluate chemicals and reserve cost benefit analysis for determine regular strixes of harmful chemicals. the bill includes increased e.p.a. authority to review chemicals a fee structure to fund the program and vulnerable populations including workers. that's from united steelworkers. the most notable improvements are replacing current tsca burdensome standard with peer health based standard, explicitly requiring the protection of vulnerable populations like children, pregnant women, and workers at
the plant, requiring safety findings before new chemical are allowed to go to market. >> the gentleman will yield 30 seconds. mr. green: giving e.p.a. new authority for testing and to ensure chemicals are safe this legislation responds to concerns of the industry provide regulatory certainty for job creators throughout our economy and has the support of the environmental defense fund, the humane society, the march of dimes and the national wildlife fend ration along with the machinist union and building trades. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this amendment and help pass the first major environmental legislation in a quarter century. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. shimkus: i'm like to recognize the gentleman from georgia for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.
-- this r: i legislation would combine the policy priorities from h.r. 2576 and s. 697 into a bipartisan bill that would modernize the toxic substance control act of 1976. recognizing the need to ensure that chemicals are safely made and used, congress passed the toxic substance control act 40 years ago. the toxic substance control act has not been updated since its inception and is in dire need of reform. policies based on this 40-year-old law are disjointed, confuse, and often contradictory for both manufacturers and consumers. modernizing the toxic substance control act would allow for adoption of uniform science based chemical safety policies. manufacturers will have the regulatory certainty they need
to develop new and safe products and consumers can shop with confidence this version of the bill also protects intellectual property rights of manufacturers, many of which have invested millions in research and development. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill that greatly improves a landmark consumer and environmental protection law. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new jersey is ecognized. mr. pallone: can i inquire how much time remains on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 14 minutes, the gentleman from illinois has 13 minutes. mr. pallone: i yield to the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. degette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. degette: thank you, mr. speaker.
i rise today in support of the frank r. lautenberg chemical safety act for the 21st century. we've been talking a lot about the admittedly very arcane dethifles bill. i want to talk for a minute about how this bill is going to impact the families of america. think about someone you know and love who will probably start a family in the next decade. i think of my own two daughters who are in their 20's. that future parent will be very excited about the arrival of a child. the parents will create a nursery in their home for their new baby, a space that's clean, warm, and safe. while they think -- well, they think it's safe. but right now, under current law that rocking chair in the corner could be covered with toxic flame retardants. the fresh paint on the walls could contain harmful, volatile organic compounds. and the rug beneath the crib probably has been treated with formaldehyde, which is a
carcinogen. parents and children should not have to worry whether the most batesic, everyday things they do are toxic to their health. tsca has been a flawed piece of legislation since it passed in 1976. nobody liked it. the environmental community, the chemical industry, or the parents of america. we need to bring some certainty to the regulation of the tens of thousands of chemicals that we have out there and that's what this bill will do. did you know that under this bill, for the first time, e.p.a. will have access to the information it needs on a chemical. they will t time regulate the worst chemicals out here like arsenic. and for the first time they'll
know exactly what's out there in commerce. for the first time, every nursery in america will be clean, warm, and safe. that's what america deserves. is this bill perfect? no. but it's what we are expected to do as members of the house and senate, democrats and republicans, protect the safety of our children and generations to come. i really want to thank my colleagues, i want to thank mr. pallone and mr. tonko on our side of the aisle. i want to thank the rock star, mr. shimkus, who i've been working with along with mr. green since 2007 to bring this to reality this true sli a great day for the families of america and i'm really proud that we're able to get this done. i'm -- i hope my colleagues will look at the bill in totality. i hope you'll see how finally we're going to be able to actually regulate these chemicals and i hope you'll vote yes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields.
the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield now three minutes to our democratic whip, mr. hoyer, who has been extremely helpful in the last few days dealing with this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to re -- to revise and extend. i rise in support of this legislation. which is the product of much negotiation, which is an understatement, i think, and an effort to find consensus. congress first enacted the toxic substance control act 40 years ago, to protect americans from the risk posed by chemicals in commerce. it's not been re-authorized since. since its original enactment, the law has become outdated an efforts to modernize it have been ongoing for several years with great difficulty.
under current law, it's become hardener e.p.a. to ban even substances that are known to cause cancer such as asbestos. the bill before us today is a breakthrough after a significant amount of work. it remits a compromise that, while not perfect, as everyone has noted is a great improvement over current law. and it will help the e.p.a. protect americans from harmful toxic substances and safeguard our environment. this bill will require the e.p.a. to evaluate both existing and new chemical substances against the new risk-based scientific safety standard that includes specific considerations for populations more vulnerable to chemical exposure such as children, seniors, and pregnant women. it also ensures that the e.p.a. can order testing immediately for substances suspected of placing americans at risk. this bill improves public
transparaphernalia soif chemical information and provides for clear and enforcement -- enforceable deadlines to review prioritized chemicals and take action to mitigate any identified risks. in short, this is a bill that reflects the kind of compromise across the aisle that we ought to be seeing more of in this house. it is fittingly named after senator frank lautenberg of new jersey who spent his career working -- may i have one additional minute? mr. pallone: i yield the gentleman one minute. mr. hoyer: who spent his career working to make this law more functional. i want to first thank the person who, in my office, worked far harder than i did. i just took her phone calls and talked to mr. pallone and talked to mr. shimkus from time to time but mary frances repko, one of
the hardest working staff members, mary francis i want to thank you for the work you did to get taos where we are. it's not perfect, as you and i agree, but it is a bill that will be better than what we have. i want to thank, of course, ranking member pallone, my dear friend, chairman upton, my friend john shimkus, the ranking member -- the chairman of the committee. mr. tonko who is not for this. he worked hard to get it to this place he, didn't get here. but he worked hard on that effort. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. it is a work product that has been sincerely achieved by people of good will and it is judged by the president of the united states and the administration and by the director of the -- the administrator of the environmental protection agency
as a significant and important step forward. that's a good deal for the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, this body has never passed a law that denied states the ability is a federal standard in place. what we are perpetrating today with this vote is a first. instead of being preempted to act once an established e.p.a. standard is in place, states are prevented from pursuing critical protections for their communities from dangerous chemicals the moment the e.p.a. ke de-sides to review the chemical, not when the e.p.a. has created a new regulation.
by allowing for this so called pause preemption we'll create an almost three-year limbo period where a chemical under review is essentially unregulated by either state or federal laws. meanwhile the public is subjected to potentially dangerous chemicals. this is unheard of in our existing consumer protection legal standards and will be to the detriment of the american people. however, i do commend the i thank the energy and commercial committee of updating the existing regulatory regime and reaching a compromise package. however, i regret this comes at the rights of the states to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens. we should not be preventing local governments from exerting their basic duty to take
proactive steps that will will protect our communities, our environment and the public health. federal regulations serve as a floor, not a ceiling, and states should be permitted to pursue laws that fill gaps in existing federal regulations. pause preemption not only increases uncertainty and delay to the rulemaking process, it limits communities' ability to seek redress through the courts when they find themselves the victims of unregulated chemicals. 15 seconds. mr. pallone: the gentleman can have an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: i thank the gentleman. lastly, i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their tremendous work on this bill and the time and . ergy spent by their staffs and while asking my colleagues to support this bill, i yield
back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i have no additional speakers. mr. shimkus: i have no other speakers and i will close after you're done. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: so many people have been involved on our staffs in this bill over the last several years, certainly prior to the time that i was the ranking member. .o i want to thank jackie jackie is sitting to my right and she more than anybody else worked on this bill and made it possible to bring this bill to fruition. she knows more about tsca than anybody else i know. i want to thank her but i want o thank jean, rick, tim,
alexander, mr. tonko's staff, brenda and clinton. the last thing i would like to say, mr. speaker, before i close this named is named the frank r. lautenberg chemical safety act 21st century.-- senator lautenberg was a mentor to me. i worked on his first campaign back in 1982 and he was always looking out for the little guy and one of the most important things was health and safety. he felt that the primary function of the federal government was to protect people's health and safety. and one of the biggest things that was important to him was what i call the right to know. he always felt that if we pass laws that allowed people to know what we were facing in the
health and environment area, that that would be good because they or even their organizations that they might be involved with on an activist level locally, would have the ability to if he can tu ate and carry out those laws. and one of the greatest regrets he had when you dealt with toxic chemicals over the time he was in the senate, longest serving senator in new jersey history, but during that whole time, he never was able to say, you know, what chemicals were dangerous and basically give people the right to know about toxic chemicals. so i think this is an important part of his legacy and i'm proud to say that today we can support a bill that is named in his honor. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to consume the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: mr. speaker, before us today as you have heard on the floor, bipartisan, bicameral agreement that substantially improves the safety of chemicals used by everyone every day. while this is not the bill, a lot of people wouldn't have written if they had their own way, the reality is this is how the legislative process is supposed to work. it is instructtive as we go back to our districts and do the school house rock and how a bill becomes a law, there is a great dynamic that's in play. so that's what happened here and that's what brings us to the floor today. this bill represents a balanced and thoughtful compromise that makes long-needed improvements to an outdated law. the legislation before us is supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders arranging from environmental and public health groups to large and small industrial organizations. it has the support of the
national association of manufacturers, the chamber of commerce, the cleaning institute, national association of chemical distributors, the society of chemical manufacturers and affiliates, the american chemistry council and there is a list of 143 groups that come out in support of this bill. it is worthy of our support as well. i also want to thank the staff who worked very hard to get us jerry, ay, chris, dave, tina, our head chief of staff of the committee, gary, along with chairman fred upton who allowed these people to be at our disposal to get this work done. we have, mr. speaker, with us in the chamber, legislative counsel. these are the unknown heroes, the people that actually get the late phone calls, try to help us figure out the language we are lynn, theyo, tim and
have my gratitude and my thanks. it speaks to in an era where we kind of question federal employees and their commitment to excellence and work ethic, they are good examples of what people really do many times. so thank you very much for your work. also want to give a nod by the house democratic staff, your loyal adversaries and i believe we will continue to be so, but we were able to do well in this process as well as the senate republicans, the senate democrat staff from senator udall, senator boxer all put in long hours and weekends for several months to get this multi year effort done. and it started since i became chairman of the committee and you have seen gene green come down and representative did he
get who worked with me in the last congress. i also want to mention the spiritual leader was bonnie lautenberg who called us numerous times, behind every great man there is a greater woman and bonnie falls into that category and she is very happy with our success today. mr. speaker, as i said in my opening remarks, this bill is good for consumers, good for jobs and the environment and imperative we pass this bill and signed into law. this is graduation time throughout our country. a lot of commencement exercises and we are always reminded that commencement means beginning. even though we are getting to the end of the legislative process of the law, the real test will be the commencement by the e.p.a. in trying to enact this law and see if it does everything that we say it will do and it's our job and our committee to continue to do
oversight to make sure that the things we think is doing well is doing well and that we look at it and you have my support in doing that oversight and overview of this new law as it moves forward. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 742, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion by the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. pallone: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the order of the house of today, further proceedings on
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, seek recognition? mr. gibbs: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 897. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gibbs: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 742 i call and the l h.r. 897 federal water pollution control act to clarify congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or
near navigable waters and ask for immediate consideration. the clerk: h.r. 897 a bill to amend the federal insecticide, fungicide act and federal water pollution control to clarify congressional intent regarding the use of pesticides inon near navigable waters and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 742, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-53 is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, and the gentlelady from california, mrs. napolitano will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes mr. gibbs.
mr. gibbs: i yield myself such time as i may consume. it has been one year since the first alerts about the zika virus were issued in brazil. the virus has been spreading north. many nages to our south have been fighting to stop the spread of zika. it has affected puerto rico and the virus spreads by contact between people. so far, we have been fortunate to avoid any transmission of zika by mosquitos inside the united states, but that may change soon. the director from the national institutes of health announced that mosquitos could be arisk in the united states as soon as june. the world health organization declared zika a worldwide health emergency and burdensome regulations should not get in the way of addressing a potential emergency since we have the ability to stop the spread of the virus. the zika virus is a serious health threat to pregnant woman
and can cause birth defects. as of may 11, the c.d.c. reports there were 503 cases of zika and 701 cases in u.s. territories, 113 pregnant women have been reported to have zika. last week, this body sent additional funds to the department of health and human services services to fight the spread. we should be research and development for a vaccine. we have the ability for state and local governments to stop the spread. unnecessary permitting regulations is making it more difficult for cities, municipalities and mosquito control districts to spray for mosquitos. because of a bad court decision, time and money will be spent on bureaucratic paperwork instead. in 2011, a decision by the sixth circuit court of appeals was
reversed 60 years of commonsense regulation by the environmental protection agency and impose national pollute ant permitting on pesticide use. that case upended a 2006 environmental protection agency rule that codified e.p.a.'s 35-year long interpretation of the law. foract regulated pesticides 60 years before the enactment of the clean water act. it had held that application of pesticides in compliance with the requirements of fifra is not a discharge of the pollutant and therefore no permit is required. but the court decided orse. in vacating the e.p.a.'s long-standing rule, the sixth circuit effectively legislated from the bench, negating responsible interpretations of
the law. the court undermined the traditional understanding of how the clean water act interact worse statutes and expanded the scope of the clean water act from the bench and pushed further regulation into areas and activities not intended by congress or interpreted by the e.p.a. as a result, federal and state agencies are expending vital funds to initiate and maintain clean water act permitting programs governing pesticide applications and a wide range of public and private pesticide users face increased financial and administrative burdens to comply with the duplicative ermitting process. the permit and its cost comes with no additional environmental protection my colleagues across the aisle like to call this groundhog day and i agree. we have seen previous public health emergencies that could have been prevented by the removal of unnecessary permit. despite this, many of the other
-- many on the other side of the aisle continue to support this regulatory burden. last week, some of my colleagues circulated a letter that stated obtaining the permit was just a modest notification in monitoring requirements. but the system must apply tell a different story. compliance costs and fears of potentially devastating lit gation are forcing states, counties and mosquito control they redirect resources to comply with requirements. i would like to submit for the record this statement from the mosquito control association this discusses many examples of the burden across the country including how the local vector control managers in oregon have explained repeatedly the negative impacts the permit is having on mosquito control. benton county, weamb, mosquito control district estimates it cost them $37,334.
they spent over $37,334 doing paperwork to secure federal and state permits, when the money could have been used to update maps and secure for the permit, spen money on permit fee, spent money on software to help with the reporting requirements for the permit and spent this money on countless requirements associated with the permit. none of this over the $37,000 was spent on spraying for mosquitoes. benton county estimates they could have treated $2 -- could ve treated 2,500 acres where mosquitoes breed or they could have paid for lab tests and hired more workers. but they were forced to spend over $37,000 to comply with the permit. the mosquito county abatement district in idaho said their staff spent three week pers year tabulating an documenting
seasonal applications with oversight. they had to invest in software that cost 20%, 20% of the district's annual operating budget to maintain this information. that is software -- that software no longer functions serving the permit. mosquito control districts of california estimate it's cost $3 million to conduct the necessary administration of permits. millions have been spent on permitting and compliance rather than eradicating mosquitoes. on top of the cost of permit it opens up permit holders to the threat of citizen's lawsuits where fines may exceed $35,000 a day. citizens' lawsuits have a much lower threshold than a dimple allegation of permit errors and can take mosquito control istricts to court. e county took 10 years and
$450,000 to address the litigation. we know behr mitt -- permits are delay, hindering and delaying the use of e.p.a.-approved pesticides right now. in 2012, the first year that this duplicative permitting went into effect, the number of cases of west nile virus jumped from 712 to 5,674 cases in the united states. in response to those west nile outbreaksmark states and communities were forced to declare public emergencies. this allowed them to use lifesaving pesticides to control mosquitoes without delay caused by the permitting process but they were only wable to -- able to do this after they declared an emergency that affected the west nile and community, they can spray without any permits. congress should not be forcing states, cities and mosquito control agencies to put their own residents, especially pregnant women, at risk of
contracting zika. h.r. 897 will enable communities to resume conducting routine, preventive mosquito control programs providing limited and emporary authorized by fifra and used in compliant with its guidance. the e.p.a. arufe -- approves and regulates the use of these under fifra. this is a simple fix to a bad court decision that added unnecessary red tape. h.r. 89 was drafted very narrowly to address only the sixth circuit court's decision and give local entities the ability to spray to protech public health. e.p.a. even provided technical assistance in drafting this bill to achieve those objectives. well over 150 organizations representing a wide variety of public and private entities and thousands of stake holders support a legislative resolution for this issue. just to name a few, these
organizations include the american mosquito control association, the national association of state departmentses of agriculture, the american farm bureau federation, family farm alliance, national rural electric cooperative association, crop life america and responsible industry for a sound environment, and the national aviation agricultural soccer. i want to thank chairman shuster for his leadership in the transportation infrastructure committee as well as ranking member pomeroy. ings that responsible, commonsense bill that will help ensure public health fishes aren't fighting zika with their hands tied behind their back. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the -- without objection.
>> h.r. 897 was not created to respond to seecafment mrs. napolitano: i hear my colleagues -- my colleague's information in regard to all that's happened with the e.p.a. and all the budget items. i suggest we start looking at increasing the budget for e.p.a. so they can do a better job. insofar as herbicides and pesticides i have a lot of information from my own experience in california where a superfund that has taken many years and will take many more to create. up until two weeks ago, the so call red deucing regulatory burdens act was drafted to relax our laws protecting public health, to reduce the paperwork burdens on commercial pesticide spraying operations. most of them were people in the spraying business, ag business and it is to their advantage.
what about the public interest sf -- interest? this will be the fourth time in three years i'll vote against this legislation. to be clear a great number of water bodies in the u.s. are already impaired or threatened by pesticides. yet for some reason, our republican majority wants it to be easier for companies to add more of these pesticides to our waters yet not report these additions nor monitor for any reason immediate health impact that may result. i am very concerned about the effect these pesticides on the health of our rivers, on our streams, and especially in the drinking water supplies of all our citizens including pregnant women. last week, the majority argued that even though this bill would exempt pesticidesside applications from the clean water act, public health would not be impacted because fifra labeling requirements would remain in place.
however, fifra labeling does not address the vol yusmse pesticide being directly or indirectly applied to our rivers, lakes, and streams on an annual basis. in many cases we simply do not know the quantities and locations of the pesticides being added to our waters. because this data is not tracked by federal or state regulators. and if we don't know what is being added to our waters, we cannot accurately be looking for potential human health or environmental impacts of these pesticides. in fact, the only way we often learn of a problem is in examples like the gentleman from oregon cited on the floor, massive fish kills or other environmental catastrophes. it is reckless to rely on a system of catastrophes or massive dieoffs to identify where problems may be lurking. proponents of this legislation
also argue that this legislation would protect the health of pregnant women and their children. how so? i think it is important to note that it could hurt both. however the legislation does nothing demonstrable to prevent the spread of zika in the united states. what i fear, however is that this legislation will relax standards for pesticide application to the point where even more water bodies become impaired or threatened by pesticides. mr. speaker, madam speaker, we know significant health risks associated with exposing pregnant women and young children to pesticides. let me name a few. birth defects, neurodevelopmental delays and cognitive impairment. childhood brain cancer. autism spectrum disorders. adhd. endocrine disruption. just to name a few. to be clear, the bill under consideration today will make it
easier, i say again, easier, to contaminate our drinking water supplies with pesticides known or suspected to pose health risks. the more -- the majority will say that fifra ensures these chemicals are safe. what the majority cannot say definitely however is that continued exposure to these chemicals over and over in the same watershed is also safe. peer review science suggests that there are impacts and that evidence should be enough for us to be cautious. if my choice is cautious, use pesticide to protect public health and elimination of paperwork requirement, i believe protection of health is more important. furthermore, according to "the washington post," of the 544 reported cases of zika in the united states, nearly all of them involve people who contracted the disease when they traveled to countries where the disease is prevalent. while a handful of the 444 cases
of zika may be -- may have involved sexual transmission of the virus, no one has acquired the disease from mosquitos in this country. no one. let me repeat that no one has reported acquiring the zika virus from a mosquito in this country. we cannot and should not limit the role of clean water act in the regulation of pesticides. over the past five years, the regulatory process has been workable to pest elimination an ag interests alike. madam speaker, i oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to vote no and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. gibbs: i want to reiterate, when i introduced this bill in 2011, the e.p.a. director of office under this current administration said this. when used properly, pesticides
provide significant benefits to society, such as controlling disease-causinging or organisms, and fostearg safe and abundant food supply. fifra requires e.m.a. weigh these benefits against potential harm to human health and the environment that may result in using pesticide. he went on to say that under fifra, the agency, e.p.a. this in -- in this case, can impose a variety of measures to change how it's used in specific uses use of pesticide will not cause harmful effects to the environment. when people are concerned about the risk arising from pesticides in water, we may require reduction in application requency rates, prohibition of certain application methods, and require use to train and certify aply kators with other
restrictions. the important point to remember, the e.p.a. has full regulatory authority under fifra to ensure the pesticides do in the cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. at this time i yield five minutes to my good friend from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . mr. davis: thank you. i thank mr. gibbs for putting this commonsense legislation forward. madam speaker, we all come here to this house floor, we work together in a bipartisan way to address many important issues that affect americans, many of my colleagues on the other side of the floor today, we've worked closely together to help our veterans, to help rebuild our roads and our infrastructure. and i do believe we can work together to stop the spread of the zika virus. and this is a commonsense piece of legislation that isn't asking to get rid of e.p.a. rules and regulations. it's asking to simply suspend them during this crisis p