John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a technical and conforming change to the bill. Let me explain. The final rule amends part 257 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA put out a prepublication version on the final rule on December 19, 2014, meaning that it was public, but had not yet been published in the Federal Register. H.R. 1734 directly incorporates the requirements in the EPA's final rule, and so there are numerous citations in the bill to the Code of Federal Regulations because, as of the date of our full committee markup, the final rule had not yet been published in the Federal Register and thus did not have a final citation in the Code of Federal Regulations. It was necessary to include in the bill a reference to the date of prepublication of the final rule and include a paragraph regarding references to the Code of Federal Regulations. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015; and as of that date, citations to the final rule were appropriately cited as citations to 40 CFR 257. My amendment simply removes the paragraph from the bill that was added as a placeholder until a final rule was published in the Federal Register. I urge all Members to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I share my colleague's concern for transparency, and I too want to make sure that the public has access to all relevant information. The State certification program would have State public access through the State EPA, and that is in this bill. So there is public access to information. H.R. 1734 accomplishes the goal by making sure the public has access to information and guaranteeing that the public will be involved with the decisionmaking process because it requires public participation in the permitting process, and it requires States to make available on the Internet such information as: all groundwater monitoring data, information regarding structural stability assessments, emergency action plans and emergency response plans, fugitive dust controls, certifications of closures, corrective action remedies, and all documents associated with the permitting process. I would like to point out that Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at EPA, indicated at our legislative hearing that States making the information available on the Internet was just as good as requiring owners and operators of disposal units putting it on their Web site. All that said, I understand my colleague's belief that the public would be better served by having utilities create individual Web sites where the same information could be posted, and I offered to work with him to improve his amendment so that it would have accomplished his goal of having individual utility Web sites and removing references to confidential business information but would also have continued to ensure that States would make information available. I regret that we were unable to come to an agreement. I am willing to work with the gentleman on this issue as we move forward, and I regret that I have to urge a ``no'' vote on his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1734.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from southwestern Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), my colleague and next-door neighbor.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I am here on the Democrat side, congratulating them for great work on 21st Century Cures. I was involved in a couple pieces of the legislation that were added, one on antibiotic resistance and a lot on medical devices, because we need to reform the process. The bureaucracy is tough. So, in streamlining these procedures, we are not questioning or addressing or harming individual safety, but what we are doing is making sure these devices get to where they need it in the quickest possible time. This is just a small part of the great work of my friends on this side--I hope you don't mind me being over here--and the majority side in that it is a tribute to what we can do when we work together. I am proud to be part of this team.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, Yes it is. H.R. 2576 contains protection for existing state laws and existing citizen enforcement actions. No existing state requirements will be preempted unless they actually conflict with federal requirements.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the TSCA Modernization Act has been a long time in coming. We actually started work on this bill in the last Congress. We held a total of eight hearings and received testimony from a broad range of stakeholders, including the administration; but most importantly, we worked with each other, Member to Member, across the aisle. The bill before you, Mr. Speaker, reflects lessons learned over the course of the last 3 years in which we worked on TSCA reform. First, the bill is clear and understandable. Despite the highly technical nature of chemical regulation, Members can pick up this bill, read it from beginning to end, and understand what it does and how it works. Second, the bill does not try to be all things for all people. Major sections of TSCA are not amended at all. For example, we leave the process for new chemical review in TSCA section 5 unchanged because it is working pretty well right now, and changes could make it worse. The heart of the bill is our approach to regulating chemicals already on the market. Thousands of these chemicals have been in commerce for many years, and they pose no known risks and really don't need to be regulated at all. We leave those alone. But we do allow some existing chemicals to be scientifically evaluated for risk and, if necessary, to have that risk managed through a rule by the EPA. Chemicals may be chosen for risk evaluation in one of two ways: either EPA may select a chemical for risk evaluation based on what EPA knows may pose an unreasonable risk, or the manufacturer may designate a chemical for EPA to evaluate for risk. Now, why would a manufacturer invite EPA scrutiny of its product? There are several reasons. First, some interest or even a retailer may be raising concerns about a product, and the manufacturer wants to put those concerns to rest. Or one or two States may be thinking about regulating the chemical. The State-by-State approach can spell disaster for someone trying to capture economies of scale in a national market. What better way to put these concerns to rest than to have EPA, with the scientific standards that we require, perform an objective risk evaluation? Then the EPA decision on that chemical will apply in all the States, and consumers and the public can have the confidence that the chemical is safe for its intended uses. Another area in the legislation that required careful discussion and negotiation is preemption. Of course, we want to make sure national markets are just that and not a patchwork of restrictions varying State to State. At the same time, we did not want to deny anyone a legitimate cause of action under State tort or contract law. So that is what we said: as long as the State law does not conflict with the Federal ruling, the State action may continue. Mr. Speaker, the bill has strict but attainable deadlines for action. If EPA initiates a risk evaluation, it must finish in 3 years. If a manufacturer initiates one and includes information EPA needs to make a decision, EPA should finish that in 2 years. Once the risk evaluation is complete, if EPA decides a rule is needed to manage the risk, EPA must propose the rule within a year. The risk evaluation itself only asks does the chemical present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. That is a science question based on a combination of hazard and actual exposure. If there is an unreasonable risk, the agency's decision on how to manage it is based on many other factors such as cost effectiveness, whether restricting an article will actually reduce exposure, whether replacements are available, and many other concerns. H.R. 2576 permits EPA to regulate articles in those areas where regulation of chemical substances and mixtures alone would not be effective to reduce the identified risk, but requires EPA to be careful in addressing replacement parts that serve a commercially intended function or the original product or are needed to maintain the functionality of the original product. We think this system sets a new standard for quality regulation. Of course, we want to be protected from harm, but we do not want needless, expensive regulations. Consumers want safe choices, not no choice at all. Mr. Speaker, we are on the brink of setting up a commonsense approach to protecting people from unsafe chemical exposure that will become the standard of the world. We want our constituents to be safe, and we want markets to work. This bill delivers both. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), my colleague.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2576) to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. We do not intend to interfere with operation of Proposition 65 unless a requirement under that law actually conflicts with a federal requirement under TSCA.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is a good bill, and I am going to give my thanks to my colleagues, too. We want a good vote today because we want to make sure we have a strong House position as we go into negotiations with the Senate, and I think we are going to have that. I also appreciate the leadership for bringing this up on the suspension calendar, which, I think, shows a lot of support right at the outset. As everyone else has done, I want to take a moment to thank our colleagues. This has been a multiyear, multi-Congress approach. As a former high school teacher in government history, so far, the system is working on this bill, and we are hoping for good things as we move forward with conference and get something to the President's desk. I harken back to Paul Tonko's comment and Frank Pallone's comment that we could pass a bill but that, if we wanted to pass a law, we really needed to open up the process a little bit. That was very helpful to me, and I appreciate that. I also want to thank Chairman Upton, obviously, for his leadership and for his friendship. Diana DeGette, who just spoke, and Gene Green have both been with me, slaving away, over the last couple of years. We have learned a lot about each other, and we have learned a lot about the law, and it is a very difficult law to understand. We also started getting help from Bob Latta, from Ohio, and from Bill Johnson, and I want to thank them for their help. H.R. 2576 has also gained letters of support from a variety of stakeholders, which include--and sometimes this shocks people to know that we have this group of diverse interests--the American Chemistry Council, the American Alliance for Innovation, the American Cleaning Institute, the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the National Association of Chemical Distributors, the National Wildlife Federation, just to name a few. I also want to thank two people who never promoted any particular policy but who were responsible for exceptional quality in the legislation before us--Tim Brown and Kakuti Lin, who are our House legislative counsel. They make sure that the words in the bill do what we intend them to do. That is a part of this process that really goes unrecognized, the people who are legislative counsel. They spend long hours, and we ask them to do heavy lifting on short notice, so we want to make sure that we thank them here today. In a highly technical field such as chemical risk management, that is not an easy task. I thank them for their skill, dedication, and hard work. Finally, I would like to recognize the dedicated staffs on both sides of the aisle who helped us craft this legislation--David McCarthy, who has already been mentioned, along with Jerry Couri on the Energy and Commerce staff. Understanding our chemical regulations has helped Members navigate through the complex nature of TSCA reform from our very first informational hearing in the last Congress. I know, over there, we have got Jackie Cohen, who in the last Congress was a real pain in the rear end to me, but, this year, we have been able to work together, which has been helpful. Jean Fruci also was a calming influence, and we appreciate her steady guidance. They have both provided quality input to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle throughout this process. I appreciate their dedication, oftentimes through nights and weekends, to help us get to where we are today. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2576 to send a strong signal that the time is now to update this outdated law and to keep the momentum and the bipartisan spirit moving forward until the President signs it into law. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are here to consider H.R. 805, the DOTCOM Act. I first introduced this legislation last Congress, and I am proud to see it brought to the floor today. The DOTCOM Act is a great example of what can get done when we work together and build on the Energy and Commerce Committee's growing record of legislative success. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, from the time the administration announced their intent to transition the IANA functions, I have had serious concerns about the potential risk associated with the move. I have said time and again that this is far too important to rush and that we must carefully consider all the potential consequences and outcomes before any transition occurs. Mr. Speaker, my bill would require a period of 30 legislative days for us to review any proposal that NTIA receives from the multistakeholder community and ICANN. This allows us to hear from our constituents and consult with outside experts before we decide if ICANN's proposal is satisfactory. If, in this review period allowed only through passage of the DOTCOM Act, we find that ICANN and/or its proposal does not adequately protect the free and open Internet, Congress can then take action to either completely stop the transfer or require more safeguards to be put in place. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the DOTCOM Act requires NTIA to renew their contract to continue these important stewardship functions with ICANN before it expires in September. Everyone agrees that the contract should remain with NTIA while this process moves forward. DOTCOM is the vehicle to make sure this does in fact happen. Extending the contract takes the pressure off of making a rushed transition and perhaps making mistakes. We get one bite at the apple on this, and we need to make sure it is done correctly. Mr. Speaker, before I relinquish my time, I want to say that I am very proud of the work that has been done on this bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee, particularly by Chairmen Upton and Walden and Ranking Members Pallone and Eshoo. We wouldn't be here today without their hard work and also the work of staff, particularly Greta Joynes of my office and committee staff David Redl, Kelsey Guyselman, Margaret McCarthy, David Goldman, and Tiffany Guarascio. Mr. Speaker, clearly, this is an issue that has brought both sides together for the best interests of all Americans. I ask my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 805, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 805) to prohibit the National Telecommunications and Information Administration from relinquishing responsibility over the Internet domain name system until the Comptroller General of the United States submits to Congress a report on the role of the NTIA with respect to such system, as amended.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on the bill.