[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 82 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2975-H2981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2576, TSCA 
MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 897, 
                REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2015

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 742 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 742

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     2576) 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 
     Energy and Commerce or his designee that the House concur in 
     the Senate amendment with an amendment inserting the text of 
     Rules Committee Print 114-54 modified by the amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted 
     by the Senate. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 897) to amend 
     the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify 
     Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of 
     pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-53 shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you heard the Reading Clerk read. Sometimes it is tough 
to follow what we do up there in the Committee on Rules. I would remind 
folks that rules.house.gov has the copy of the rule, and folks can get 
into all of the details. I am real proud of the work that we did up 
there yesterday. I am glad to be down here on the floor today 
representing it.
  House Resolution 742, Mr. Speaker, is a standard rule for 
consideration of a House amendment to the Senate-amended H.R. 2576. 
That is the Toxic Substances Control Act Modernization Act. It also 
provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 897, the Zika Vector 
Control Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the year was 1976. That was the last time the Congress 
and the White House dealt in a serious way with the Toxic Substances 
Control Act. In fact, that is when the bill was first passed.
  For the intervening four decades, science has changed, technology has 
changed, consumer demands have changed, and yet the way that we 
regulate these chemicals has not. And it is not for lack of trying.
  For Pete's sake, Mr. Speaker, long before I arrived in this Chamber 5 
years ago, Members were trying to find an agreement on how to deal with 
the Toxic Substances Control Act, how to update that for late 20th 
century or early 21st century technology.
  In fact, the late Senator Lautenberg, Mr. Speaker, was probably the 
largest champion for this reform that we had on either side of Capitol 
Hill. He passed away 3 years ago next week. Three years ago next week, 
many thought that the opportunities we had to succeed here passed away 
with him.
  Despite the headlines, Mr. Speaker, that read that gridlock controls 
Washington, D.C., despite the 1-minutes that you hear down on the 
floor, Mr. Speaker, where it is their fault and it is their problem or 
it is his fault and it is his problem, there really are a serious group 
of Members on both sides of this Capitol who want to get the people's 
business done. What we have today is one of those efforts, an effort 40 
years in the making that culminates here today.
  It happened with a lot of serious, hard work on both sides of the 
Hill, Mr. Speaker. It happened because folks didn't give up when people 
said it couldn't be done. It happened because nobody said: It is my way 
or the highway. But they said: How can I work with folks who may 
disagree with me in order to reach an end that is going to be better 
for the folks that I serve back home?
  We have that product today, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I have it right 
here. It is also available. It is the Rules Committee print. It is 
available at rules.house.gov if folks want to give it a read.
  I won't confess it is a short read. I won't even suggest that it is 
an exciting read. But what I will suggest is it is the product of 
negotiation and consensus building.
  You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that when we first dealt with this 
issue on the House side, it passed 398-1--398-1. It passed by unanimous 
consent on the Senate side. Now here we are today, having bridged those 
two bills. Mr. Speaker, that is the TSCA legislation.

[[Page H2976]]

  The Zika Vector Control Act, Mr. Speaker, is designed to bring those 
pest control technologies that we have, those pest control 
opportunities that we have, to bear in the name of public health as 
soon as safely possible.
  Mr. Speaker, for years the EPA has had in its understanding of how to 
regulate in this country that, as long as it had already certified a 
pest control as being safe, they did not have to go back and run it 
through the Clean Water Act approval process as well.
  The law of the land, strictly speaking, says, yes, you need to do 
that. Folks thought it was duplicative. They hadn't been doing it.
  This bill today clarifies that. It says: For Pete's sake, the law of 
the land is the law of the land. You ought to follow the law of the 
land. The law of the land ought to bring solutions to market as quickly 
and safely as we possibly can.
  Mr. Speaker, we get one bite at this apple. We get one bite at Zika 
control. We get one bite at making this a public health risk that does 
not balloon here in the United States of America. This bill gives us an 
opportunity to put our best foot forward in terms of pest control.
  Forty years, Mr. Speaker. For 40 years we have been working as House 
Members, as Senate Members, as Republicans, as Democrats, trying to 
look for the next effort to make sure that the chemicals we use in 
everyday household products are as safe as they can be, as viable as 
they can be--40 years, Mr. Speaker--and that process culminates here 
today.
  This is a rule that all Members can support, and I would encourage 
them to do exactly that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from Georgia mentioned a Web site a couple times. I want to 
make sure that you are aware, Mr. Speaker, of 
democrats.rules.house.gov. That is the Web site that tells what is 
really going on in the Committee on Rules and in the House.
  Democrats.rules.house.gov talks about the fact that there are more 
closed rules in this Congress than any Congress that precedes it. What 
does that mean? It means that Republicans have chosen to allow fewer 
amendments and have had more rules that allow more bills with no 
amendments than in any prior Congress. That is the kind of facts, Mr. 
Speaker, that we want to bring to your attention on 
democrats.rules.house.gov, an excellent Web site.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise today--this is the last rule that I 
will have the opportunity to manage in conjunction with our current 
Democratic staff director, Miles Lackey, who, after 25 years of public 
service, will be leaving at the end of this week.
  As a member of the Committee on Rules, I have deeply enjoyed the 
opportunity to work with Mr. Lackey these last several years. Really, 
there are few who know the institution and its rules as well as Miles 
Lackey, and I personally will miss him.
  Mr. Lackey is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill. He joined the House of Representatives staff back in 1987. 
In addition to his work in the House, he has been chief of staff to two 
United States Senators and a senior official in the Clinton White 
House. He has contributed to many pieces of landmark legislation over 
the last three decades.
  I join my colleagues in wishing him well as he begins his new 
adventure on the staff at the historic Trinity Church, an Episcopal 
parish in New York City.
  I want to express my profound gratitude, Mr. Speaker, for having had 
the opportunity to work with somebody of Mr. Lackey's caliber, as I 
join my colleagues in wishing him well in his future adventures.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to the rule and the first of 
the two underlying bills, the Zika Vector Control Act, H.R. 897. It has 
changed its name. It is now called the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act 
of 2015.
  What it should be called, perhaps, is the Pesticide Trojan Horse Act, 
which would be a more apt name for what this bill actually does, which 
I will talk about in a minute.
  The second bill that is covered under this rule is the TSCA 
Modernization Act, which is the product of years of negotiations. It 
certainly has both bipartisan support as well as bipartisan opposition.
  It has problems especially regarding State preemption, which I will 
talk about, as well as several important attributes that have solved 
issues that have been facing our country with regard to chemical 
regulation for some time.
  Now, first, with the first bill, we have a bill that, apparently, the 
Republicans thought they could change the name of and then bring to the 
floor again. They figured, presumably, that with ``Zika'' in the title 
it would be harder to vote against.
  In reality, this bill has very little to do with the Zika epidemic. 
It is really another attack on the Environmental Protection Agency and 
the Clean Water Act. It is really just a pesticide industry Trojan 
horse bill.
  I am very disappointed that we are considering a rule on this bill 
when there is a very real threat of Zika on our shores. There are 
already many Americans who have encountered Zika abroad, been infected, 
and have returned to our country. It is only a matter of time, Mr. 
Speaker, especially with the changing climate, that Zika will be 
endemic and will be spread in our own country by mosquitoes.
  I had the opportunity to visit the Centers for Disease Control 
facility in Fort Collins, Colorado, in my district. In the CDC facility 
in Fort Collins, they conduct all of the vector-borne illness research 
for the CDC. That is the nexus of vector-borne illness.
  What does that mean? It means diseases that are spread by ticks and 
mosquitoes and fleas, everything from Lyme disease to Rocky Mountain 
spotted fever, in this case, Zika.
  The CDC had been tracking Zika for some time. For close to a decade 
they knew that Zika existed. However, when it spread in South America 
and the link was recently made to birth defects, it jumped to the top 
of their agenda.
  Unfortunately, they lack the abilities they need and the resources 
they need to try to find an effective way to eradicate Zika and provide 
a vaccination against Zika that would then be made globally available.
  That is the kind of Zika bill the Democrats would like to bring 
forward. It is the kind of Zika bill that Americans expect from a 
public health perspective. It is the kind of Zika bill that will save 
lives and prevent a public health catastrophe.
  I think there is a better way to do business on the floor of the 
House of Representatives. It wasn't too long ago that our new Speaker 
was touting dedication to regular order, but here we are again dealing 
with secretive, smoky backroom deals with very little time given to 
open, transparent discussion or amendments.
  As you can see at democrats.rules.house.gov, there have been a record 
number of closed bills in this Congress. Last night in the Committee on 
Rules, we had a partisan vote where the Democrats sought to open up 
this rule for amendments and the majority unanimously--the Republicans 
all sided together--shot down any chances for real discussion. 
Unfortunately, the Republicans are preventing an open discussion of 
ideas.
  They also know the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act--that is the 
pesticide bill or the Zika bill, whatever you call it--won't become 
law, but they are deciding to bring up yet another partisan attack on 
the Environmental Protection Agency, somehow saying that actions to 
keep us safe from harmful pesticides is what has anything to do with 
Zika or public health.
  In fact, the EPA is acting to protect public health by regulating 
toxic pesticides that not only can hurt humans, but can damage our 
environment.

                              {time}  1245

  I am glad to see we are finally having a busy week on the floor of 
the House. But the fact is one of these bills was already defeated on 
suspension last week, and we have so much work to do. There are only 24 
days of business in the House of Representatives before Congress gets 
sent home for a summer break. It shows me that we can use our time 
better. We can pass immigration

[[Page H2977]]

reform, we can address our Nation's infrastructure, we can prevent the 
tax incentives that encourage corporations to offshore jobs, and we can 
reform our broken tax system.
  There is a lot that we could be doing during these limited 24 days 
besides passing a Trojan horse for the pesticide industry. We have a 
list of must-do items before July, as well. Congress has to pass an FAA 
reauthorization. We need to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It 
won't get any better if Congress doesn't act. We need to address the 
student debt crisis and make college more affordable.
  Mr. Speaker, I--and I believe the American people--would like to see 
all of these things happen before Congress gets another day or week or 
2 months off, as Congress is expected to get in just 24 days.
  TSCA reform is long overdue. The law is 40 years old. It has never 
really been updated, frankly, throughout its history. It has failed at 
controlling toxic substances, as the title has indicated it was 
supposed to do.
  I am glad to see that a bipartisan, bicameral compromise was struck, 
which, for the most part, will strengthen the reform in a way that will 
protect our communities and public health.
  There is a broad range of support for the bill, from supporters in 
the environmental community to labor, to the EPA, to industry groups. 
However, there are some serious concerns that I think we should take 
into account, particularly around an issue very near and dear to my 
heart: State preemption.
  For the last 40 years, the EPA has had their hands tied in trying to 
regulate chemicals, which is why TSCA is considered to be the least 
effective environmental law out there. This bill will make it more 
effective and give it some more teeth. But to get any improvement on 
this law wouldn't take much raising of the bar, as it was the least 
effective environmental law out there.
  The current law requires a cost-benefit analysis by the EPA which is 
far too high a bar to meet when it comes to protecting our children's 
safety. When we are talking about chemicals, we need to focus on 
health. And that is what this bill does. It requires that a minimum 
safety threshold be met by new chemicals before they are able to enter 
the marketplace. It makes sense.
  It specifically focuses on the health of vulnerable populations like 
children and pregnant women who are at elevated risk of chemical 
exposure, which the current law does not.
  Most astonishing about the current law is it actually grandfathered 
in over 60,000 chemicals in 1976. Today they are joined by hundreds of 
thousands of additional chemicals and many household products and 
industrial uses. This legislation would require safety reviews for all 
chemicals currently in use that people are exposed to.
  As an example of how ludicrous the current system is, of the 62,000 
chemicals on store shelves before 1976, the EPA only has studies on a 
few hundred. That means there are over 61,000 chemicals currently on 
store shelves that the EPA has not done any study on their 
environmental impact or human health impacts.
  Even more ridiculous, the EPA's attempted ban on asbestos was struck 
down in 1991, due to the EPA having such a high standard for 
unreasonable risk. Yet we know asbestos has killed 107,000 people. It 
couldn't be banned under the current law, even when the EPA tried. This 
law will make the burden lower and, consequently, our make communities 
safer by reviewing far more chemicals.
  I should add that the asbestos issue has largely been dealt with by 
liability and litigation--court cases that have lasted decades. If we 
could have a regulatory system that prevents unsafe chemicals from 
being brought to the market and sold, it will also save hundreds of 
millions of dollars in legal fees and awards that would ensue if the 
chemicals were brought to market and actually harmed people.
  So in addition to preventing the harm, these types of safety 
regulations can actually save both plaintiffs and defendants, both 
companies and consumers, significant amounts of resources.
  To review these chemicals, the EPA will need funding. This bill 
collects a fee for new and existing chemicals, which is important to 
make the program work. The implementation of this new framework will be 
extremely important for TSCA to work.
  There are several other positive aspects of the bill, but the other 
significant one I want to mention is that it reduces the use of animals 
for chemical testing, which is why I am proud to say the Humane Society 
has endorsed the bill.
  Unfortunately, however, it is not all good news. There are some 
negative aspects to the bill that I was hoping we would have the 
opportunity to address through amendment, but due to this very closed 
process, we have not.
  There are problems with provisions limiting the States' ability to 
act in an aggressive and proactive manner. There are many States around 
the country that have or are working to enact strong provisions to 
protect their residents from exposure to dangerous chemicals.
  So, again, in the absence of a meaningful Federal system, many States 
have taken it upon themselves to protect their citizens from harmful 
chemicals.
  The argument here is, now that the Federal Government does it, we can 
have some kind of preemption. I personally would like to see the 
ability of State governments to go above and beyond the Federal 
regulations without being cumbered by this issue of preemption. Now, it 
is a nuanced preemption. I am going to talk a little about it.
  There have been some improvements to the State preemption language 
over the last few weeks and compromises written. As drafted, States 
will not have has much flexibility to protect their residents from 
unsafe chemicals as they do today. And that is absolutely true, and it 
is very unfortunate.
  This so-called preemption pause period means that States seeking to 
protect the public from unsafe chemicals may have to wait up to 3 years 
for the EPA to finish its review. There are also concerns with the 
ability of the EPA to regulate imported products.
  So I believe there was an opportunity to do even more to protect the 
health of American people and our environment under this bill.
  With regard to State preemption standards, the bill can actually take 
us backward by preventing thoughtful health and safety standards at the 
State level. But in other ways, by empowering the Federal Government 
and finally putting teeth in TSCA, it is a good step forward.
  So I urge Members to balance the important new authority the EPA is 
receiving with the negative parts of the bill around State law 
preemption. I know this bill will have both bipartisan support and 
opposition.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

  Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder why folks have such a negative 
opinion of Congress. And then sometimes I listen to my colleagues speak 
and I understand why folks back home have a negative opinion of 
Congress--because the folks who serve in this institution seem to have 
a negative opinion of Congress.
  I would say to my friend from Colorado, I am not thrilled about 
everything in TSCA reform either. Generally speaking, when it takes 40 
years to get something done; generally speaking, when Democrats ran the 
entire show and they failed to get it done, and when Republicans ran 
the entire show, they failed to get it done; generally speaking, those 
are really hard things to get done.
  It takes serious, serious people working serious, serious hours, 
struggling with serious, serious issues to come to a conclusion. And 
candidly, Mr. Speaker, if I loved everything in this bill, I would 
wonder why we didn't get it done sooner. The easy things have already 
been done. All that is left for us are the hard things. Candidly, we 
have a good team on the field to do those hard things.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope when we get into the debate on the underlying 
bill, you are not just going to hear from the Republican chairman of 
the committee about the good work here, but you are going to hear from 
the Democratic ranking member about the good work done here.

[[Page H2978]]

  I am hoping you are not just going to hear from the Republican 
subcommittee chairman about the good work here, but that you are going 
to hear from the Democratic ranking member on the subcommittee about 
the good work here because that is how this bill came before us.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a discussion of partisanship. I hold in 
my hand a report from the Congressional Research Service. That is the 
nonpartisan, academic research arm of the United States Congress. The 
title of this report is ``Congressional Efforts to Amend Title I of the 
Toxic Substances Control Act,'' the House-and Senate-negotiated bill.
  I agree with my friend from Colorado. If he and I were to sit down 
here and be able to write the bills ourselves--not just this one, but 
all of the bills ourselves--we would come up with some really great 
solutions; oftentimes, different solutions from the ones that are 
presented on the floor.
  But the reason no amendments are allowed to this bill is because we 
have been working on it for 40 years because we couldn't agree. We 
already passed a bill in the House. They already passed a bill in the 
Senate. They were different bills. We had to come together and agree on 
the same language.
  Now, to all of my friends who would like to offer their great ideas 
here at the eleventh hour, I would just tell you there were times 
before the eleventh hour that those ideas could have been offered, 
there were opportunities before the eleventh hour to come together. 
This is the final language. We don't want amendments to the final 
language.
  I believe in an open process. I believe in an amendment process. I am 
proud that this is a closed rule on this topic because the amendments 
and the process have gone on in the past. This is the final product 
here today. That is TSCA, Mr. Speaker.
  Now, the Zika Vector Control Act. My friend from Colorado, again, 
describes smoke-filled backroom deals when he describes this bill.
  Again, why do folks have such a negative opinion about what we do?
  One man's smoke-filled backroom deal is another man's 30 years of 
common practice. That is right. This is the bill that codifies what the 
EPA has been doing for 30 years. This codifies what the EPA, under 
Democratic administrations and Republican administrations, has already 
been doing.
  They got sued, Mr. Speaker. Folks sued them and said: Hey, we don't 
think you are doing it right. We don't think that is what the rules 
allow.
  So what did the EPA do?
  The EPA came out with a rulemaking process and said: Just to make it 
clear, this is the way we think we can best protect the public health.
  They got sued again. And the court said: No, EPA, you can't make 
those decisions. Yes, you have been doing it for 30 years, but no, you 
can't make those decisions. Congress needs to make that decision.
  So what did Congress do?
  We made that decision, and that bill is before us here today.
  It is not a smoke-filled backroom deal, Mr. Speaker. It is light-of-
day, common sense, common practice, trying to align the laws of the 
land with the expectations of our constituencies back home.
  Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, every day of the week we could show up in 
this institution and we could run out somebody about something that is 
not going the way it is supposed to go. But together, we are succeeding 
today where previous Republicans and previous Democrats have failed. 
Together, we are succeeding today where previous Congresses found it 
too hard. Together, we are about the business that our constituents 
sent us here to do.
  This is not a day to denigrate the institution, Mr. Speaker. This is 
a day to celebrate those things that we are able to do when we come 
together in the best traditions of the United States House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia's remarks have very little to 
do with anybody who is denigrating the institution. I think he 
profoundly misunderstands the reason that the American people think 
that Congress isn't doing its job.
  Let's talk about what Congress is doing. Today it is great. We are 
working. We are debating. We will probably be here until midnight.
  Well, guess what?
  After 3 more days of work, on Thursday, Congress will actually go on 
an 11-day vacation. It is working until Thursday, and then an 11-day 
vacation. We then come back in June, and I think Congress works for 12 
days. Of course, in July, I think Congress works an amazing 8 or 9 days 
out of the entire month. August, zero days.
  So what the American people expect is for us to be here hammering 
away at these issues 5 days a week, 6 days a week, and, if necessary, 7 
days a week. That is the kind of work ethic that I brought to the 
companies that I worked for. When I was starting companies, I was 
working hard. Whether it was 5 days a week or 6 days a week, we worked 
as long as we needed to to get the job done. And that is the opposite 
of the work ethic of this Congress, because there are enormous tasks 
that this Congress is not doing.
  This Congress hasn't worked at all towards balancing the budget. 
There are deficits of close to half a trillion dollars, thanks to the 
Republican tax-and-spend Congress. This Congress hasn't done a thing to 
fix our broken immigration system. Not a thing. It hasn't passed a 
single immigration bill in the entire Congress.
  Let's stay here rather than go on vacation for 11 days. Let's make 
college more affordable for American families. Let's reduce the 
deficit. Let's fix our broken immigration system and secure our 
borders.
  Those are the kinds of things I would be proud of as a Member of a 
Congress. I would be proud to be here 5 days a week working hard on 
those issues. I would be proud to compromise and work with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to create a work product that the 
American people would be confident with and, of course, would increase 
the confidence of the American people in this institution and both the 
Republicans and Democrats who have the honor to serve in it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gene Green).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Colorado colleague 
on the Rules Committee for allowing me to speak.
  I rise to oppose this rule but in support of the amendment to H.R. 
2576, the TSCA Modernization Act.
  This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will reform our Nation's 
broken chemical safety law for the first time since 1976 and directly 
addresses the Toxic Substance Chemical Act's fundamental flaws.
  Congress has worked on reforming TSCA for over a decade, and, as a 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have personally been 
working on fixing the statute since 2008.
  Though not perfect, the proposal before the House today is, in the 
words of President Obama's administration, ``a clear improvement over 
current TSCA and represents a historic advancement for chemical safety 
and environmental law.''
  The most notable improvements in the bill are replacing the current 
TSCA's burdensome safety standard with a pure, health-based standard--
that makes sense--explicitly requiring the protection of vulnerable 
populations like children, pregnant women, and workers at chemical 
facilities like the district I represent; requiring a safety finding 
before new chemicals are allowed to go onto the market; giving EPA new 
authority to order testing and ensure chemicals are safe, with a focus 
on the most risky chemicals.
  This legislation responds to the concerns of industry to provide 
regulatory certainty for the job creators throughout our economy.
  This legislation is a win for our congressional district in Eastside 
Houston and Harris County, home to one of the largest collection of 
chemical facilities in our country.
  The reforms contained in this proposal have protections for the 
workers at our chemical plants, the fence line communities next to 
these plants, and benefit chemical manufacturers who will have 
certainty in a true, nationwide market.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
supporting this

[[Page H2979]]

amendment and help pass the first major environmental legislation in a 
quarter of a century.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the worst of these two 
bills that we are considering under this rule, a bill that has very 
little or even perhaps no Democratic support, a bill that nearly 150 
health, environmental, and fishing groups have made their opposition 
to. That is the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.
  It came up last week and failed. They had rebranded it last week as 
the Zika Vector Control Act. Now they are removing the pretense that 
somehow this deals with Zika and are just renaming it the Reducing 
Regulatory Burdens Act. This is the insecticide Trojan horse bill.
  This is really a changing game where it is the same bill week after 
week. It failed last week, and they are bringing it back under a 
different procedure this week.
  Last week, apparently, they tried to use the threat that the Zika 
virus has posed to attack a very important law that actually protects 
our health and the health of our environment.
  Now, of course, vector control, mosquito control, tick control, et 
cetera, is a very important part of managing any health crisis. But 
this bill really isn't about that. It is a thinly veiled ploy to 
undermine the Clean Water Act.
  Certain pesticides are considered by the EPA to be pollutants because 
they are. They kill fish. They kill birds. They hurt people.
  This bill would eliminate the regulatory step of requiring a permit 
to use these dangerous pesticides near water, effectively undercutting 
our primary means of protecting our water system.
  Once again, if you want to use a pesticide that is considered by the 
EPA to be a pollutant near a water source--a river or a lake--you have 
to apply for a special permit. As part of that procedure, you talk 
about what precautions are made to make sure that it doesn't 
contaminate the water supply.
  Under this bill, were it to become law, you would no longer have to 
receive a permit and it endangers the water supply.
  Coming from the great State of Colorado, we always like to say that 
water is for fighting over. We value our precious water resources for 
agriculture, for our residents, and for our environment.
  Anything that risks contaminating it is absolutely detrimental to our 
interests as a State. That is why so many sportsmen and fishermen have 
also come out against this bill. Zika is the enemy, not the 
Environmental Protection Agency. We have our priorities all mixed up.
  The Centers for Disease Control is not asking for this bill. The 
entity charged with battling Zika is not. This is just a backdoor 
attack on the EPA. Public health experts are not asking for this bill.
  This bill removes the EPA's ability to regulate pesticide application 
that is intended to protect water supply when pesticides can, in fact, 
be one of the worst threats to a community's water, especially for 
vulnerable mothers and newborns.
  Instead of wasting our time with red herrings like this bill, we 
should be talking about how we can support the world-class research and 
doctors we have and need to tackle the threat that Zika poses.
  So far, Zika has been found in 30 countries throughout the Western 
Hemisphere. As we head into the summer months, the number of Zika cases 
will only increase.
  Evidence has indicated Zika is linked to microcephaly, which causes a 
baby's head to develop smaller than normal, which is going to have 
devastating implications for potentially an entire generation in 
countries that have been hit hardest by Zika. And, of course, we fear 
when it reaches our shores.
  There are already cases in the U.S. The CDC is monitoring almost 300 
pregnant women for cases of microcephaly. We need to prepare for the 
eventuality that, unless we act, which this bill does not do, there 
will be more people infected with Zika.
  We need to work quickly and aggressively to mitigate the lasting 
effect. The President has a proposal to do that. The President has 
requested $1.9 billion to address Zika.
  I am offering an amendment to bring up legislation that would provide 
this funding if we defeat the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that fully funds the 
administration's effort to mount a robust response to the growing Zika 
crisis instead of just paying lip service to this public health 
epidemic through cleverly named bills that keep changing their names 
and very short-term funding commitments.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we defeat the previous question. 
That will allow the President's proposal to actually defeat Zika to 
come forward for a vote.
  This month I had the opportunity to visit the Division of Vector-
Borne Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control in Fort Collins. Now, 
the Division of Vector-Borne Diseases is an HHS-funded laboratory that 
studies vector-borne diseases, including Zika.
  They are an important part of the fight against Zika. We should be 
supporting their efforts, not wasting precious floor time on a bill 
that literally endangers our waters, our environment, and our health. 
Adequate preparation for and, ultimately, a vaccination for Zika will 
save lives.
  The House needs to act. We need to defeat this previous question. 
That is why we should be voting on comprehensive Zika legislation, not 
legislation that is a Trojan horse for the insecticide industry that 
undermines clean water and the health of our children.
  Whether it is the impact on the water ecosystem or the fact that 
water treatment plants spend millions of dollars to clean up surface 
water from pesticides, Congress has an obligation to fight to keep our 
waters clean so that pregnant women, children, and all Americans can be 
healthy.
  That is why we need to vote this bill down. That is why we need to 
defeat the previous question, to actually bring up a real Zika bill to 
address this public health crisis before more families are affected.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I go through all of the things the gentleman from 
Colorado got wrong, I want to talk about what he got absolutely right, 
which is that this institution is going to miss Miles Lackey when he 
leaves at the end of this week.
  We are going to have more time to talk about Miles' contribution 
here. But folks like Mr. Lackey we don't need here on the easy days. We 
need them here on the hard days. We don't need them here to get the 
little things done. We need them here to get the mammoth things done.
  We have a lot of mammoth things left on the calendar, and it is going 
to be harder to make those happen in your absence, Mr. Lackey. It has 
been a great, great joy serving with you these 5\1/2\ years, and I 
appreciate your commitment to this institution.
  We are what we are here, Mr. Speaker, because of the commitment of 
individual Members, individual staffers, individual constituents back 
home, who will not allow us to fail. The two bills that we have before 
us today are examples of exactly that.
  It is hard to cut through the rhetoric sometimes, Mr. Speaker. If we 
went up to the gallery right now, Mr. Speaker, and polled folks about 
whether or not this Zika Vector Control Act had failed on the floor of 
the House, whether we had brought this to the floor and it had failed, 
I suspect everybody up there would say: Absolutely it failed. I have 
been hearing about it all morning.
  The truth is, Mr. Speaker, because it is Washington, D.C., and 
sometimes the rules don't work here like they do elsewhere, the 
definition of failure in this House means that it got 262 votes

[[Page H2980]]

``yes'' and 159 votes ``no.'' Let's make that clear.
  The bill that we are voting on today that is, apparently, the 
controversial of the two, is the one that last week when we voted on it 
got 262 bipartisan ``yes'' votes and 159 solely partisan ``no'' votes.
  Now, why is that true, Mr. Speaker? Why can a bill get 262 votes, a 
clear majority of this institution, and not pass? Well, because it was 
on the suspension calendar, that calendar used for completely 
noncontroversial bills to try to move things to conclusion faster.
  Why is this a completely noncontroversial bill, Mr. Speaker? Because 
this has been the practice of the land for three decades, because this 
has been the EPA's intention for three decades, because this has been 
the EPA's goal through its rulemaking process.
  But courts being what courts are, EPA couldn't get the finality on 
what it wanted to do by itself, so it needs Congress' approval.
  I am in favor of that, Mr. Speaker. I celebrate that. Thank goodness 
we finally found an Agency downtown in this one very isolated 
circumstance that doesn't think it can just do whatever it wants to do 
without Congress' approval.
  I am glad we have come together today to give it that approval--262 
``yes'' votes, bipartisan; 159 ``no'' votes, partisan--to codify what 
has been the practice of the land in the name of safety, in the name of 
clean water, in the name of trying to do the very best we can for our 
constituents back home.
  I am proud that this bill is a part of this rule today, and I hope 
the House will move it quickly forward.
  The second bill that we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the TSCA 
bill, the Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA is what folks call it in 
the industry.
  Not a single amendment is being allowed today, Mr. Speaker. Why? 
Because we have already done the amending, because we have already done 
the negotiating, because we have already done the heavy lifting that 
was required to do what no Congress and no White House has been able to 
do since 1976, the heavy lifting that was started 10 years ago and 
folks could not get it across the finish line.
  We have a group of men and women here today, Mr. Speaker, of House 
Members and Senate Members today, of Republicans and Democrats today, 
who wouldn't take ``no'' for an answer.
  It is outrageous that we would regulate chemical safety in 2016 in 
the exact same way we contemplated it in 1976. It is outrageous, but it 
is hard. It is hard to bring people together.
  It is easy to tear people apart, Mr. Speaker. I can come down here. I 
can lay down the fire and brimstone. We can tear folks apart. That is 
easy.
  We have all been on those home improvement projects, Mr. Speaker. It 
is tearing out the drywall that is fun. Putting it back up is hard.
  Today we are in the construction business. We are in the building 
business. We are in the bringing people together and making possible 
what folks thought was impossible.
  My friend from Colorado is right, Mr. Speaker. Every day is not the 
same here in the U.S. House of Representatives. Some days are better 
than others. This is a good day.
  This is a good day not because there is something special about this 
particular day of the week, Mr. Speaker, but because it is the 
culmination of days, weeks, months, and years of folks fighting hard 
for what they believed in, folks fighting hard for what their 
constituents sent them here to do, folks fighting hard for what they 
thought was right and finding a way to come together and making a 
difference for the American people.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, I hold here in my hand a Statement of Administration 
Policy, the President urging Congress to move this bicameral, 
bipartisan compromise to his desk for his signature.
  This isn't a day about show; this isn't a day about politics; this 
isn't a day about a November election. This is a day about making a 
difference for the folks who sent us here. With the passage of this 
rule and the passage of this bill, we will do together what others 
found too hard to accomplish.
  I am proud of that, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 742, the special order of business 
governing consideration of H.R. 897, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
Act of 2015, included a prophylactic waiver of points of order against 
its consideration, and it was described as such in House Report 114-
590. The waiver of all points of order now includes a waiver of clause 
9 of rule XXI which requires the chair of each committee of initial 
referral to disclose a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional 
Record prior to its consideration. However, it is important to note 
that one of the two committees of initial referral submitted the 
required statement and the second committee is expected to submit the 
required statement prior to the bill's consideration.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 742 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016 
     to respond to Zika virus. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5044.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee

[[Page H2981]]

     on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hardy). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________