[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10250-10259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     TSCA MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015

  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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2576

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``TSCA 
     Modernization Act of 2015''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Testing of chemical substances and mixtures.
Sec. 4. Regulation of hazardous chemical substances and mixtures.
Sec. 5. Relationship to other Federal laws.
Sec. 6. Disclosure of data.
Sec. 7. Effect on State law.
Sec. 8. Administration of the Act.
Sec. 9. Conforming amendments.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2602) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (14) as 
     paragraphs (8) through (10) and (12) through (16), 
     respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) The term `intended conditions of use' means the 
     circumstances under which a chemical substance is intended, 
     known, or reasonably foreseeable to be manufactured, 
     processed, distributed in commerce, used, and disposed of.''; 
     and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (10), as so redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(11) The term `potentially exposed subpopulation' means a 
     group of individuals within the general population who, due 
     to either greater susceptibility or greater potential 
     exposure, are likely to be at greater risk than the general 
     population of adverse health effects from exposure to a 
     chemical substance.''.

     SEC. 3. TESTING OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND MIXTURES.

       Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2603) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``; or'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) testing of a chemical substance is necessary to 
     conduct a risk evaluation under section 6(b); and'';
       (2) in the matter following subsection (a)(2), by inserting 
     ``, order, or consent agreement'' after ``by rule''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)(5), by striking ``paragraph (1)(A) or 
     (1)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)(A), (1)(B), or 
     (1)(C)''.

     SEC. 4. REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND 
                   MIXTURES.

       (a) Scope of Regulation.--Section 6(a) of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``finds that there is a reasonable basis to 
     conclude'' and inserting ``determines under subsection (b)'';
       (2) by inserting ``or designates a chemical substance under 
     subsection (i)(2),'' before ``the Administrator shall by 
     rule''; and
       (3) by striking ``to protect adequately against such risk 
     using the least burdensome requirements'' and inserting ``so 
     that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents or 
     will present an unreasonable risk, including an identified 
     unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed subpopulation''.
       (b) Risk Evaluations.--Section 6(b) of the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Risk Evaluations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall conduct risk 
     evaluations pursuant to this subsection to determine whether 
     or not a chemical substance presents or will present, in the 
     absence of requirements under subsection (a), an unreasonable 
     risk of injury to health or the environment.
       ``(2) Applying requirements.--The Administrator shall apply 
     requirements with respect to a chemical substance through a 
     rule under subsection (a) only if the Administrator 
     determines through a risk evaluation under this subsection, 
     without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, 
     that the chemical substance presents or will present, in the 
     absence of such requirements, an unreasonable risk of injury 
     to health or the environment.
       ``(3) Conducting risk evaluation.--
       ``(A) Required risk evaluations.--The Administrator shall 
     conduct and publish the results of a risk evaluation under 
     this subsection for a chemical substance if--

[[Page 10251]]

       ``(i) the Administrator determines that the chemical 
     substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to 
     health or the environment because of potential hazard and a 
     potential route of exposure under the intended conditions of 
     use; or
       ``(ii) a manufacturer of the chemical substance requests 
     such a risk evaluation in a form and manner prescribed by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(B) TSCA work plan chemicals.--The Administrator may, 
     without making a determination under subparagraph (A)(i), 
     conduct and publish the results of a risk evaluation under 
     this subsection for a chemical substance that, on the date of 
     enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, is listed in 
     the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments published by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(4) Requirements.--In conducting a risk evaluation under 
     this subsection, the Administrator shall--
       ``(A) integrate and assess information on hazards and 
     exposures for all of the intended conditions of use of the 
     chemical substance, including information that is relevant to 
     specific risks of injury to health or the environment and 
     information on potentially exposed subpopulations;
       ``(B) not consider information on cost and other factors 
     not directly related to health or the environment;
       ``(C) take into account, where relevant, the likely 
     duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under 
     the intended conditions of use of the chemical substance;
       ``(D) describe the weight of the scientific evidence for 
     identified hazard and exposure;
       ``(E) consider whether the weight of the scientific 
     evidence supports the identification of doses of the chemical 
     substance below which no adverse effects can be expected to 
     occur; and
       ``(F) in the case of a risk evaluation requested by a 
     manufacturer under paragraph (3)(A)(ii), ensure that the 
     costs to the Environmental Protection Agency, including 
     contractor costs, of conducting the risk evaluation are paid 
     for by the manufacturer.
       ``(5) Deadlines.--
       ``(A) Risk evaluations.--The Administrator shall conduct 
     and publish a risk evaluation under this subsection for a 
     chemical substance as soon as reasonably possible, subject to 
     the availability of resources, but not later than--
       ``(i) 3 years after the date on which the Administrator--

       ``(I) makes a determination under paragraph (3)(A)(i); or
       ``(II) begins the risk evaluation under paragraph (3)(B); 
     or

       ``(ii) in the case of a risk evaluation requested by a 
     manufacturer under paragraph (3)(A)(ii), 2 years after the 
     later of the date on which--

       ``(I) the manufacturer requests the risk evaluation; or
       ``(II) if applicable, the risk evaluation is initiated 
     pursuant to subparagraph (B).

       ``(B) Deadline adjustment.--If the Administrator receives 
     more requests for risk evaluations under paragraph (3)(A)(ii) 
     than the Administrator has resources to conduct by the 
     deadline under subparagraph (A)(ii)(I) (taking into account 
     the requirement in paragraph (4)(F)), the Administrator 
     shall--
       ``(i) initiate risk evaluations that exceed the 
     Administrator's allotted resources as soon as resources for 
     such risk evaluations are available; and
       ``(ii) not collect a fee under section 26 from the 
     manufacturer for a risk evaluation until the Administrator 
     initiates the risk evaluation.
       ``(C) Subsection (a) rules.--If, based on a risk evaluation 
     conducted under this subsection, the Administrator 
     determines, without consideration of costs or other non-risk 
     factors, that a chemical substance presents or will present, 
     in the absence of a rule under subsection (a), an 
     unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, the 
     Administrator shall--
       ``(i) propose a rule under subsection (a) for the chemical 
     substance not later than 1 year after the date on which the 
     risk evaluation regarding such chemical substance is 
     published under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) publish in the Federal Register a final rule not 
     later than 2 years after the date on which the risk 
     evaluation regarding such chemical substance is published 
     under subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Extension.--If the Administrator determines that 
     additional information is necessary to make a risk evaluation 
     determination under this subsection, the Administrator may 
     extend the deadline under subparagraph (A) accordingly, 
     except that the deadline may not be extended to a date that 
     is later than--
       ``(i) 90 days after receipt of such additional information; 
     or
       ``(ii) 2 years after the deadline being extended under this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(6) Determinations of no unreasonable risk.--
       ``(A) Notice and comment.--Not later than 30 days before 
     publishing a final determination under this subsection that a 
     chemical substance does not and will not present an 
     unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, the 
     Administrator shall make a preliminary determination to such 
     effect and provide public notice of, and an opportunity for 
     comment regarding, such preliminary determination.
       ``(B) Potentially exposed subpopulations.--The 
     Administrator shall not make a determination under this 
     subsection that a chemical substance will not present an 
     unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment if 
     the Administrator determines that the chemical substance, 
     under the intended conditions of use, presents or will 
     present an unreasonable risk of injury to 1 or more 
     potentially exposed subpopulations.
       ``(C) Final action.--A final determination under this 
     subsection that a chemical substance will not present an 
     unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment 
     shall be considered a final agency action.
       ``(7) Minimum number.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Administrator shall initiate 10 or more 
     risk evaluations under paragraphs (3)(A)(i) or (3)(B) in each 
     fiscal year beginning in the fiscal year of the date of 
     enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015.''.
       (c) Promulgation of Subsection (a) Rules.--Section 6(c) of 
     the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2605(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Requirements for rule.--In promulgating any rule 
     under subsection (a) with respect to a chemical substance or 
     mixture, the Administrator shall--
       ``(A) consider and publish a statement with respect to--
       ``(i) the effects of the chemical substance or mixture on 
     health and the magnitude of the exposure of human beings to 
     the chemical substance or mixture;
       ``(ii) the effects of the chemical substance or mixture on 
     the environment and the magnitude of the exposure of the 
     environment to the chemical substance or mixture;
       ``(iii) the benefits of the chemical substance or mixture 
     for various uses; and
       ``(iv) the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences 
     of the rule, including consideration of the likely effect of 
     the rule on the national economy, small business, 
     technological innovation, the environment, and public health;
       ``(B) impose requirements under the rule that the 
     Administrator determines, consistent with the information 
     published under subparagraph (A), are cost-effective, except 
     where the Administrator determines that additional or 
     different requirements described in subsection (a) are 
     necessary to protect against the identified risk;
       ``(C) based on the information published under subparagraph 
     (A), in deciding whether to prohibit or restrict in a manner 
     that substantially prevents a specific use of a chemical 
     substance or mixture and in setting an appropriate transition 
     period for such action, determine whether technically and 
     economically feasible alternatives that benefit health or the 
     environment, compared to the use so proposed to be prohibited 
     or restricted, will be reasonably available as a substitute 
     when the proposed prohibition or other restriction takes 
     effect;
       ``(D) exempt replacement parts designed prior to the date 
     of publication in the Federal Register of the rule unless the 
     Administrator finds such replacement parts contribute 
     significantly to the identified risk, including identified 
     risk to identified potentially exposed subpopulations; and
       ``(E) in selecting among prohibitions and other 
     restrictions to address an identified risk, apply 
     prohibitions or other restrictions to articles on the basis 
     of a chemical substance or mixture contained in the article 
     only to the extent necessary to protect against the 
     identified risk.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``Procedures.--'' before ``When 
     prescribing a rule'';
       (B) by striking ``provide an opportunity for an informal 
     hearing in accordance with paragraph (3); (D)'';
       (C) by striking ``, and (E)'' and inserting ``; and (D)''; 
     and
       (D) by moving such paragraph 2 ems to the right;
       (3) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) and redesignating 
     paragraph (5) as paragraph (3); and
       (4) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4)'' and 
     inserting ``Application.--Paragraphs (1) and (2)''; and
       (B) by moving such paragraph 2 ems to the right.
       (d) Effective Date.--Section 6(d)(2)(B) of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2605(d)(2)(B)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Any rule promulgated 
     under subsection (a) shall provide for a reasonable 
     transition period.''.
       (e) Non-risk Factors; Critical Use Exemptions; PBT 
     Chemicals.--Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 
     U.S.C. 2605) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Non-risk Factors.--The Administrator shall not 
     consider costs or other non-risk factors when deciding 
     whether to initiate a rulemaking under subsection (a).
       ``(h) Critical Use Exemptions.--
       ``(1) Criteria for exemption.--The Administrator may grant 
     an exemption from a requirement of a subsection (a) rule for 
     a specific use of a chemical substance or mixture, if--

[[Page 10252]]

       ``(A) the requirement is not cost-effective with respect to 
     the specific use, as determined by the Administrator pursuant 
     to subsection (c)(1)(B); and
       ``(B) the Administrator finds that--
       ``(i) the specific use is a critical or essential use; or
       ``(ii) the requirement, as applied with respect to the 
     specific use, would significantly disrupt the national 
     economy, national security, or critical infrastructure.
       ``(2) Procedure.--An exemption granted under paragraph (1) 
     shall be--
       ``(A) supported by clear and convincing evidence;
       ``(B) preceded by public notice of the proposed exemption 
     and an opportunity for comment; and
       ``(C) followed by notice of the granted exemption--
       ``(i) to the public, by the Administrator; and
       ``(ii) to known commercial purchasers of the chemical 
     substance or mixture with respect to which the exemption 
     applies, by the manufacturers and processors of such chemical 
     substance or mixture.
       ``(3) Period of exemption.--An exemption granted under 
     paragraph (1) shall expire after a period not to exceed 5 
     years, but may be renewed for one or more additional 5-year 
     periods if the Administrator finds that the requirements of 
     paragraph (1) continue to be met.
       ``(4) Conditions.--The Administrator shall impose 
     conditions on any use for which an exemption is granted under 
     paragraph (1) to reduce risk from the chemical substance or 
     mixture to the greatest extent feasible.
       ``(i) Chemicals That Are Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and 
     Toxic.--
       ``(1) Identification.--Not later than 9 months after the 
     date of enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, the 
     Administrator shall publish a list of those chemical 
     substances that the Administrator has a reasonable basis to 
     conclude are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, not 
     including any chemical substance that is a metal, a metal 
     compound, or subject to subsection (e).
       ``(2) Confirmation of concern.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 
     2015, the Administrator shall designate as a PBT chemical of 
     concern each chemical substance on the list published under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) that, with respect to persistence and 
     bioaccumulation, scores high for one and either high or 
     moderate for the other, pursuant to the TSCA Work Plan 
     Chemicals Methods Document published by the Administrator in 
     February 2012; and
       ``(B) exposure to which is likely to the general population 
     or to a potentially exposed subpopulation identified by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(3) Expedited action.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2), 
     subject to the availability of appropriations, not later than 
     2 years after designating a chemical substance under 
     paragraph (2), the Administrator shall promulgate a rule 
     under subsection (a) with respect to the chemical substance 
     to reduce likely exposure to the extent practicable.
       ``(4) Relationship to subsection (b).--If, at any time 
     prior to the date that is 90 days after the date on which the 
     Administrator publishes the list under paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator makes a finding under subsection (b)(3)(A)(i), 
     or a manufacturer requests a risk evaluation under subsection 
     (b)(3)(A)(ii), with respect to a chemical substance, such 
     chemical substance shall not be subject to this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 5. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.

       Section 9(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2608(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Administrator shall coordinate'' and 
     inserting ``(1) The Administrator shall coordinate''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) In making a determination under paragraph (1) that it 
     is in the public interest for the Administrator to take an 
     action under this title with respect to a chemical substance 
     or mixture rather than under another law administered in 
     whole or in part by the Administrator, the Administrator 
     shall consider the relevant risks, and compare the estimated 
     costs and efficiencies, of the action to be taken under this 
     title and an action to be taken under such other law to 
     protect against such risk.''.

     SEC. 6. DISCLOSURE OF DATA.

       Section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2613) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(5) may be disclosed to a State, local, or tribal 
     government official upon request of the official for the 
     purpose of administration or enforcement of a law; and
       ``(6) shall be disclosed upon request--
       ``(A) to a health or environmental professional employed by 
     a Federal or State agency in response to an environmental 
     release; or
       ``(B) to a treating physician or other health care 
     professional to assist in the diagnosis or treatment of 1 or 
     more individuals.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter following 
     subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``data which discloses'' and inserting 
     ``data that disclose formulas (including molecular 
     structures) of a chemical substance or mixture,'';
       (B) by striking ``mixture or,'' and inserting ``mixture, 
     or,''; and
       (C) by striking ``the release of data disclosing'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking the subsection heading and inserting 
     ``Designating and Substantiating Confidentiality.--'';
       (B) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows: ``(1)(A) 
     In submitting information under this Act after date of 
     enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, a 
     manufacturer, processor, or distributor in commerce shall 
     designate the information which such person believes is 
     entitled to protection under this section, and submit such 
     designated information separately from other information 
     submitted under this Act. A designation under this 
     subparagraph shall be made in writing and in such manner as 
     the Administrator may prescribe, and shall include--
       ``(i) justification for each designation of 
     confidentiality;
       ``(ii) a certification that the information is not 
     otherwise publicly available; and
       ``(iii) separate copies of all submitted information, with 
     1 copy containing and 1 copy excluding the information to 
     which the request applies.
       ``(B) Designations made under subparagraph (A) after the 
     date of enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 shall 
     expire after 10 years, at which time the information shall be 
     made public unless the manufacturer, processor, or 
     distributor in commerce has reasserted the claim for 
     protection, in writing and in such manner as the 
     Administrator may prescribe, including all of the elements 
     required for the initial submission.
       ``(C) Not later than 60 days prior to making information 
     public under subparagraph (B), the Administrator shall 
     notify, as appropriate and practicable, the manufacturer, 
     processor, or distributor in commerce who designated the 
     information under subparagraph (A) of the date on which such 
     information will be made public unless a request for renewal 
     is granted under subparagraph (B).''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, for a reason 
     other than the expiration of such designation pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(B),'' before ``proposes to release''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``or (4)'' and 
     inserting ``(4), or (6)''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(f) Prohibition.--No person who receives information as 
     permitted under subsection (a) may use such information for 
     any purpose not specified in such subsection, nor disclose 
     such information to any person not authorized to receive such 
     information.
       ``(g) Savings.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to affect the applicability of State or Federal rules of 
     evidence or procedure in any judicial proceeding.''.

     SEC. 7. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.

       (a) In General.--Section 18(a) of the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2617(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (2) by striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) if the Administrator makes a final determination 
     under section 6(b) that a chemical substance will not present 
     an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment 
     under the intended condition of use, no State or political 
     subdivision may, after the date of publication of such 
     determination, establish or continue in effect any 
     requirement that applies to such chemical substance under the 
     intended conditions of use considered by the Administrator in 
     the risk evaluation under section 6(b), and is designed to 
     protect against exposure to such chemical substance under the 
     intended conditions of use, unless the requirement of the 
     State or political subdivision--
       ``(i) is adopted under the authority of a Federal law; or
       ``(ii) is adopted to protect air or water quality or is 
     related to waste treatment or waste disposal, except that 
     this clause does not apply to such a requirement if a 
     provision of this title, or an action or determination made 
     by the Administrator under this title, actually conflicts 
     with the requirement; and
       ``(C) if the Administrator imposes a requirement, through a 
     rule or order under section 5 or 6, that applies to a 
     chemical substance or mixture (other than a requirement 
     described in section 6(a)(6)) and is designed to protect 
     against a risk of injury to health or the environment 
     associated with such chemical substance or mixture, no State 
     or political subdivision may, after the effective date of 
     such requirement, establish or continue in effect any 
     requirement that applies to such chemical substance or 
     mixture (including a requirement that applies to an article 
     because the article contains the chemical substance or 
     mixture) and is designed to protect against exposure to the 
     chemical

[[Page 10253]]

     substance or mixture either under the intended conditions of 
     use considered by the Administrator in the risk evaluation 
     under section 6(b) or from a use identified in a notice 
     received by the Administrator under section 5(a), or, in the 
     case of a requirement imposed pursuant to section 6(i), is 
     designed to protect against a risk of injury considered by 
     the Administrator in imposing such requirement, unless the 
     requirement of the State or political subdivision--
       ``(i) is identical to the requirement imposed by the 
     Administrator;
       ``(ii) is adopted under the authority of a Federal law; or
       ``(iii) is adopted to protect air or water quality or is 
     related to waste treatment or waste disposal, except that 
     this clause does not apply to such a requirement if a 
     provision of this title, or an action or determination made 
     by the Administrator under this title, actually conflicts 
     with the requirement.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) In the case of an identical requirement described in 
     paragraph (2)(C)(i)--
       ``(A) a State may not assess a penalty for a specific 
     violation for which the Administrator has assessed a penalty 
     under section 16; and
       ``(B) if a State has assessed a penalty for a specific 
     violation, the Administrator may not assess a penalty for 
     that violation in an amount that would cause the total of the 
     penalties assessed for the violation by the State and the 
     Administrator combined to exceed the maximum amount that may 
     be assessed for that violation by the Administrator under 
     section 16.''.
       (b) Savings.--Section 18 of the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 2617) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Savings.--
       ``(1) Prior state actions.--Nothing in this title, nor any 
     risk evaluation, rule, order, standard, or requirement 
     completed or implemented under this title, shall be construed 
     to preempt or otherwise affect the authority of a State or 
     political subdivision of a State to continue to enforce any 
     action taken or requirement that has taken effect--
       ``(A) before August 1, 2015, under the authority of a State 
     law that prohibits or otherwise restricts the manufacturing, 
     processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a 
     chemical substance; or
       ``(B) pursuant to a State law that was in effect on August 
     31, 2003,

     unless an action or determination made by the Administrator 
     under this title actually conflicts with the action taken or 
     requirement that has taken effect pursuant to such a State 
     law.
       ``(2) Tort and contract law.--Nothing in this title, nor 
     any risk evaluation, rule, order, standard, or requirement 
     completed or implemented under this title, shall be construed 
     to preempt or otherwise affect either Federal or State tort 
     law or the law governing the interpretation of contracts of 
     any State, including any remedy for civil relief, whether 
     under statutory or common law, including a remedy for civil 
     damages, and any cause of action for personal injury, 
     wrongful death, property damage, or other injury based on 
     negligence, strict liability, products liability, failure to 
     warn, or any other legal theory relating to tort law.
       ``(3) Intent of congress.--It is not the intent of Congress 
     that this title, or rules, regulations, or orders issued 
     pursuant to this title, be interpreted as influencing, in 
     either a plaintiff's or defendant's favor, the disposition of 
     any civil action for damages in a State court, or the 
     authority of any court to make a determination in an 
     adjudicatory proceeding under applicable State law with 
     respect to the admissibility of evidence, unless a provision 
     of this title actually conflicts with the State court action.
       ``(4) Application.--For purposes of this title, the term 
     `requirements' does not include civil tort actions for 
     damages under State law.''.
       (c) Effect of Actions by Administrator.--Nothing in this 
     Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed 
     as changing the preemptive effect of an action taken by the 
     Administrator prior to the date of enactment of this Act or 
     under section 6(e).

     SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.

       Section 26 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2625) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``of a reasonable fee'';
       (B) by inserting ``of a fee that is sufficient and not more 
     than reasonably necessary'' after ``section 4 or 5'';
       (C) by inserting ``, or who requests a risk evaluation 
     under section 6(b)(3)(A)(ii),'' before ``to defray the 
     cost'';
       (D) by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``the provision 
     of this title for which such fee is collected''; and
       (E) by striking ``Such rules shall not provide for any fee 
     in excess of $2,500 or, in the case of a small business 
     concern, any fee in excess of $100.'' and inserting ``Such 
     rules shall provide for lower fees for small business 
     concerns.'';
       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
       ``(3) Fund.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States a revolving fund, to be known as the 
     TSCA Service Fee Fund (in this paragraph referred to as the 
     `Fund'), consisting of such amounts as are deposited in the 
     Fund under this paragraph.
       ``(B) Collection and deposit of fees.--The Administrator 
     shall collect the fees described in paragraph (1) and deposit 
     those fees in the Fund.
       ``(C) Crediting and availability of fees.--On request by 
     the Administrator, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer from the Fund to the Administrator amounts 
     appropriated to pay or recover the full costs incurred by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, including contractor costs, 
     in carrying out the provisions of this title for which the 
     fees are collected under paragraph (1).
       ``(D) Use of funds by administrator.--Fees authorized under 
     this section shall be collected and available for obligation 
     only to the extent and in the amount provided in advance in 
     appropriations Acts, and shall be available without fiscal 
     year limitation for use only in administering the provisions 
     of this title for which the fees are collected.
       ``(E) Accounting and auditing.--
       ``(i) Accounting.--The Administrator shall biennially 
     prepare and submit to the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     of the House of Representatives a report that includes an 
     accounting of the fees paid to the Administrator under this 
     paragraph and amounts disbursed from the Fund for the period 
     covered by the report, as reflected by financial statements 
     provided in accordance with sections 3515 and 3521 of title 
     31, United States Code.
       ``(ii) Auditing.--
       ``(I) In general.--For the purpose of section 3515(c) of 
     title 31, United States Code, the Fund shall be considered a 
     component of a covered executive agency.
       ``(II) Components of audit.--The annual audit required in 
     accordance with sections 3515 and 3521 of title 31, United 
     States Code, of the financial statements of activities 
     carried out using amounts from the Fund shall include an 
     analysis of--

       ``(aa) the fees collected and amounts disbursed under this 
     subsection;
       ``(bb) the reasonableness of the fees in place as of the 
     date of the audit to meet current and projected costs of 
     administering the provisions of the title for which the fees 
     are collected; and
       ``(cc) the number of requests for a risk evaluation made by 
     manufacturers under section 6(b)(3)(A)(ii).

       ``(III) Federal responsibility.--The Inspector General of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct the annual 
     audit described in subclause (II) and submit to the 
     Administrator a report that describes the findings and any 
     recommendations of the Inspector General resulting from the 
     audit.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Scientific Standards.--In carrying out sections 4, 5, 
     and 6, to the extent that the Administrator makes a decision 
     based on science, the Administrator shall consider, as 
     applicable--
       ``(1) the extent to which the scientific and technical 
     procedures, measures, methods, or models employed to generate 
     the information are reasonable for and consistent with the 
     use of the information;
       ``(2) the extent to which the information is relevant for 
     the Administrator's use in making a decision about a chemical 
     substance or mixture;
       ``(3) the degree of clarity and completeness with which the 
     data, assumptions, methods, quality assurance, and analyses 
     employed to generate the information are documented;
       ``(4) the extent to which the variability and uncertainty 
     in the information, or in the procedures, measures, methods, 
     or models, are evaluated and characterized; and
       ``(5) the extent of independent verification or peer review 
     of the information or of the procedures, measures, methods, 
     or models.
       ``(i) Weight of Scientific Evidence.--The Administrator 
     shall make decisions under sections 4, 5, and 6 based on the 
     weight of the scientific evidence.
       ``(j) Availability of Information.--Subject to section 14, 
     the Administrator shall make available to the public all 
     notices, determinations, findings, rules, and orders of the 
     Administrator under this title.
       ``(k) Policies, Procedures, and Guidance.--
       ``(1) Development.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, the 
     Administrator shall develop any policies, procedures, and 
     guidance the Administrator determines are necessary to carry 
     out the amendments to this Act made by the TSCA Modernization 
     Act of 2015.
       ``(2) Review.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, and not less 
     frequently than once every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall--
       ``(A) review the adequacy of the policies, procedures, and 
     guidance developed under paragraph (1), including with 
     respect to animal, nonanimal, and epidemiological test 
     methods and procedures for assessing and determining risk 
     under this title; and
       ``(B) revise such policies, procedures, and guidance as the 
     Administrator determines

[[Page 10254]]

     necessary to reflect new scientific developments or 
     understandings.
       ``(l) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) Initial report.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, the 
     Administrator shall submit to the Committees on Energy and 
     Commerce and Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committees on Environment and Public Works and 
     Appropriations of the Senate a report containing an 
     estimation of--
       ``(A) the capacity of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     to conduct and publish risk evaluations under subparagraphs 
     (A)(i) and (B) of section 6(b)(3), and the resources 
     necessary to initiate the minimum number of risk evaluations 
     required under section 6(b)(7);
       ``(B) the capacity of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     to conduct and publish risk evaluations under section 
     6(b)(3)(A)(ii), the likely demand for such risk evaluations, 
     and the anticipated schedule for accommodating that demand;
       ``(C) the capacity of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     to promulgate rules under section 6(a) as required based on 
     risk evaluations conducted and published under section 6(b); 
     and
       ``(D) the actual and anticipated efforts of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to increase the Agency's 
     capacity to conduct and publish risk evaluations under 
     section 6(b).
       ``(2) Subsequent reports.--The Administrator shall update 
     and resubmit the report described in paragraph (1) not less 
     frequently than once every 5 years.''.

     SEC. 9. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 4.--Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 2603) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``rule'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``rules'' and 
     inserting ``rules, orders, and consent agreements'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``rule'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement''; 
     and
       (D) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``rule under subsection (a)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement 
     under subsection (a)'';
       (ii) by striking ``repeals the rule'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``repeals the rule or order or modifies the 
     consent agreement to terminate the requirement''; and
       (iii) by striking ``repeals the application of the rule'' 
     and inserting ``repeals or modifies the application of the 
     rule, order, or consent agreement'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``rule'' and inserting 
     ``rule or order'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``a rule under 
     subsection (a) or for which data is being developed pursuant 
     to such a rule'' and inserting ``a rule, order, or consent 
     agreement under subsection (a) or for which data are being 
     developed pursuant to such a rule, order, or consent 
     agreement'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``such rule or which 
     is being developed pursuant to such rule'' and inserting 
     ``such rule, order, or consent agreement or which is being 
     developed pursuant to such rule, order, or consent 
     agreement''; and
       (iii) in the matter following subparagraph (B), by striking 
     ``the rule'' and inserting ``the rule or order'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)(B)(i), by striking ``rule 
     promulgated'' and inserting ``rule, order, or consent 
     agreement''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``rule promulgated'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement'';
       (ii) by striking ``such rule'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``such rule, order, or consent agreement''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the rule'' and 
     inserting ``the rule, order, or consent agreement'';
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``rule'' and inserting 
     ``rule, order, or consent agreement''; and
       (4) in subsection (g), by striking ``rule'' and inserting 
     ``rule, order, or consent agreement''.
       (b) Section 5.--Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 2604) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (i) by striking ``rule promulgated'' and inserting ``rule, 
     order, or consent agreement''; and
       (ii) by striking ``such rule'' and inserting ``such rule, 
     order, or consent agreement'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) by striking ``rule promulgated'' and inserting ``rule 
     or order''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the date of the submission in accordance 
     with such rule'' and inserting ``the required date of 
     submission''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), by striking ``rule 
     promulgated'' and inserting ``rule, order, or consent 
     agreement'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(2)(C), by striking ``rule'' and 
     inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement''; and
       (3) in subsection (h)(4), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and 
     (3) of section 6(c)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2) of 
     section 6(c)''.
       (c) Section 6.--Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 2605) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(2)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``, provide reasonable opportunity, in 
     accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c), for 
     a hearing on such rule,'' and inserting ``in accordance with 
     paragraph (2) of subsection (c),''; and
       (B) by striking ``; and if such a hearing is requested'' 
     and all that follows through ``or revoke it.'' and inserting 
     a period; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(4), by striking ``paragraphs (2), 
     (3), and (4) of subsection (c)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (2) of subsection (c)''.
       (d) Section 7.--Section 7(a)(1) of the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2606(a)(1)) is amended, in the matter 
     following subparagraph (C), by striking ``a rule under 
     section 4, 5, 6, or title IV or an order under section 5 or 
     title IV'' and inserting ``a rule under section 4, 5, or 6 or 
     title IV, an order under section 4 or 5 or title IV, or a 
     consent agreement under section 4''.
       (e) Section 8.--Section 8(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2607(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)) is 
     amended by striking ``or an order in effect under section 
     5(e)'' and inserting ``, an order in effect under section 4 
     or 5(e), or a consent agreement under section 4''.
       (f) Section 9.--Section 9(a) of the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2608(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``section 6'' each place it appears and inserting ``section 
     6(a)''.
       (g) Section 11.--Section 11(b)(2)(E) of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2610(b)(2)(E)) is amended 
     by striking ``rule promulgated'' and inserting ``rule 
     promulgated, order issued, or consent agreement entered 
     into''.
       (h) Section 15.--Section 15(1) of the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2614(1)) is amended by striking ``(A) 
     any rule'' and all that follows through ``or (D)'' and 
     inserting ``any requirement of this title or any rule 
     promulgated, order issued, or consent agreement entered into 
     under this title, or''.
       (i) Section 18.--Section 18(a)(2)(A) of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2617(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``rule promulgated'' and inserting ``rule, 
     order, or consent agreement''; and
       (2) by striking ``such rule'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``such rule, order, or consent agreement''.
       (j) Section 19.--Section 19 of the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 2618) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (i) by striking ``(A) Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the promulgation of a rule'' and inserting ``Not later 
     than 60 days after the date on which a rule is promulgated'';
       (ii) by inserting ``or the date on which an order is issued 
     under section 4,'' before ``any person'';
       (iii) by striking ``such rule'' and inserting ``such rule 
     or order''; and
       (iv) by striking ``such a rule'' and inserting ``such a 
     rule or order'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (1)(B);
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the rule'' and 
     inserting ``the rule or order''; and
       (D) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the rule'' and 
     inserting ``the rule or order'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a rule under 
     section 4(a)'' and inserting ``a rule or order under section 
     4(a)'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``such rule'' and 
     inserting ``such rule or order'';
       (iv) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``such rule'' and 
     inserting ``such rule or order''; and
       (v) in subparagraph (E)--

       (I) by striking ``to such rule'' and inserting ``to such 
     rule or order''; and
       (II) by striking ``the date of the promulgation of such 
     rule'' and inserting ``the date on which such rule is 
     promulgated or such order is issued'';

       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``review a rule'' and inserting ``review a 
     rule, or an order under section 4,'';
       (B) by striking ``such rule'' and inserting ``such rule or 
     order'';
       (C) by striking ``the rule'' and inserting ``the rule or 
     order'';
       (D) by striking ``new rule'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``new rule or order''; and
       (E) by striking ``modified rule'' and inserting ``modified 
     rule or order''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``a rule'' and inserting ``a rule, or an 
     order under section 4''; and
       (II) by striking ``such rule'' and inserting ``such rule or 
     order''; and

       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``a 
     rule'' and inserting ``a rule or order'';
       (II) in clause (i)--

       (aa) by inserting ``or an order under section 4,'' before 
     ``the standard for review'';
       (bb) by striking ``such rule'' and inserting ``such rule or 
     order'';
       (cc) by striking ``the rule'' and inserting ``the rule or 
     order''; and
       (dd) by striking the semicolon and inserting ``; and''; and

[[Page 10255]]

       (III) by striking clause (ii) and redesignating clause 
     (iii) as clause (ii); and

       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``any rule'' and 
     inserting ``any rule or order''.
       (k) Section 20.--Section 20(a)(1) of the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2619(a)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``order issued under section 5'' and inserting ``order issued 
     under section 4 or 5''.
       (l) Section 21.--Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 2620) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``order under section 
     5(e) or (6)(b)(2)'' and inserting ``order under section 4 or 
     5(e)''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``order under section 
     5(e), 6(b)(1)(A), or 6(b)(1)(B)'' and inserting ``order under 
     section 4 or 5(e)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4)(B)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``order 
     under section 5(e) or 6(b)(2)'' and inserting ``order under 
     section 4 or 5(e)'';
       (ii) in clause (i), by striking ``order under section 
     5(e)'' and inserting ``order under section 4 or 5(e)''; and
       (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``or an order under 
     section 6(b)(2)''.
       (m) Section 24.--Section 24(b)(2)(B) of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2623(b)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and'' at the end of clause (i);
       (2) by striking clause (ii); and
       (3) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
       (n) Section 27.--Section 27(a) of the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2626(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``rules promulgated'' and inserting ``rules, orders, or 
     consent agreements''.
       (o) Section 30.--Section 30(2) of the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2629(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``rule'' and inserting ``rule, order, or consent agreement''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.


                             General Leave

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  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.

                              {time}  1515

  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. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Nearly four decades ago, Congress enacted the Toxic Substances 
Control Act to identify and regulate risks from dangerous chemicals. 
Unfortunately, the statute has never worked. Improvements to the law 
are long overdue, and I am happy to be here today with my Energy and 
Commerce colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this landmark 
reform legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, what brought us together is the failure of the current 
statute to keep the American public safe and to provide confidence in 
the safety of American products. Toxic chemicals can be found in the 
products we use every day and are steadily building up in our bodies 
and the environment.
  Consumers are worried about chemicals like BPA and triclosan, but 
they don't know how to avoid them. It seems like every day there is a 
new study about how chemicals are negatively affecting our health, and 
something needs to change.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee has held many hearings over the 
last 6 years to understand why TSCA isn't working. Some critical

[[Page 10256]]

flaws were built into the statute, like the grandfathering of over 
60,000 chemicals in 1976 without any safety review. Other flaws came to 
light only through litigation, like the impossible analytical burden of 
the statute's ``least burdensome'' clause.
  Even though we have recognized these flaws, forward progress has been 
elusive. When Chairman Shimkus and Chairman Upton approached Ranking 
Member Tonko and myself about working on a streamlined approach to 
address the essential components of reform, I was hopeful.
  The result is a bipartisan bill that will remove major obstacles to 
EPA action and give the Agency new authority and new resources. It will 
offer more protection and more implementation than current law. It is a 
strong compromise, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2576 will empower EPA to regulate the universe of 
chemicals that were grandfathered in 1976 by removing the requirement 
that EPA impose the ``least burdensome'' regulatory option and by 
establishing a risk-based standard for risk management, instead of a 
cost-benefit standard. For the first time, the decision of whether a 
chemical needs to be regulated will be based purely on the risk it 
poses.
  H.R. 2576 will improve EPA's access to information about potentially 
dangerous chemicals by allowing EPA to require testing through orders 
and consent agreements, not just rulemakings, and by authorizing EPA to 
seek data when needed for a risk evaluation without first demonstrating 
risk.
  H.R. 2576 will provide expedited action for the worst chemicals, 
those that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. Under this bill, 
we can expect quick action to get these chemicals out of our 
environment and out of our bodies.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2576 will explicitly and directly protect 
vulnerable populations like children, workers, the elderly, and hotspot 
communities.
  The bill will provide more resources for EPA to carry out this 
important program by removing outdated caps on user fees. It would also 
ensure that those fees are deposited in a dedicated trust fund for TSCA 
implementation.
  Under the bill, all future confidential business information claims 
by industry would have to be substantiated, preventing abuse and 
ensuring greater transparency.
  H.R. 2576 would ensure that States maintain their important role as 
partners in chemical regulation. Under the bill, preemption of State 
laws would be more limited than current law and other proposals. No 
State law would be preempted until Federal requirements are in effect.
  Many State laws would be protected from preemption, including 
existing State laws, new State laws adopted to address air and water 
quality or implement other Federal laws, State tort claims, and State 
laws regulating uses not evaluated by EPA.
  In response to concerns raised by stakeholders and Members, a few 
additional important clarifications have been made following committee 
markup, and I thank the chairman for working with us to make those 
changes.
  There is now clear authority for EPA to set a schedule if 
manufacturer-requested risk evaluations exceed EPA's capacity, ensuring 
that such requests won't overwhelm the program. The grandfathering 
provision for existing State laws has also been clarified based on 
feedback from State attorneys general.
  Mr. Speaker, strong committee report language further clarifies the 
limited role of costs in risks management, the preservation of State 
monitoring and reporting requirements, and the expansion of EPA's 
testing authority.
  I know that tomorrow, we will get back to disagreeing on the 
importance of environmental protection and the essential role EPA plays 
in keeping America safe, but for today, we can all agree on the need 
for a strong and protective Federal regulatory program for chemicals.
  I want to thank Chairman Shimkus and Chairman Upton for their 
leadership and their willingness to work with Democrats and 
stakeholders to craft this legislation. I would also like to thank 
Jackie Cohen of my staff for her hard work on this legislation, as well 
as Dave McCarthy of the majority staff for his efforts. This is a true 
testament to what we can achieve when we work together.
  I look forward to supporting this bill, and I hope all my colleagues 
will join me in supporting this landmark legislation.
  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. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2576, the 
TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, which updates the Toxic Substances 
Control Act, TSCA, of 1976. This legislation will benefit the Eighth 
District of Indiana and our Nation by improving the regulation of 
chemicals in commerce.
  Indiana's Eighth District has a strong and diverse manufacturing 
sector, including plastics, fertilizer production, automobiles, and 
medical devices, which play pivotal roles in the local and State 
economy.
  H.R. 2576 will improve the EPA's outdated regulatory process for 
these industries and manufacturers, fostering conditions for stronger 
interstate commerce, and ensure robust protections for public health 
and the environment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and our 
ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative 
Pallone, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, Congress passed the Toxic Substances 
Control Act, which created a Federal program to manage the risks 
associated with our Nation's industrial chemicals.
  That law, TSCA, has never met that need. As a result, the public has 
lost confidence in this Federal program. The many failings of the 
current law have been pointed out in reports, reports issued by the 
Government Accountability Office and others.
  Well-intentioned attempts over the years to address some of the 
problems administratively or through voluntary agreements amongst the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the chemical industry, and the 
environmental and public health communities have failed. The public has 
too little information about the safety of chemicals that they are 
exposed to every day in virtually every product that they use.
  Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of harm to people's health, 
EPA is unable to regulate exposure to toxic chemicals. Congress had to 
step in and explicitly legislate to gain public health and 
environmental protections from PCBs, for instance, and asbestos.
  Because of the regulatory vacuum at the Federal level, some States 
have legislated to secure protections for their citizens. In some 
cases, large retailers have initiated their own chemical policies to 
respond to what are consumers' concerns.
  Forty years of ineffective Federal policy is enough. H.R. 2576, the 
TSCA Modernization Act, amends TSCA and corrects the fundamental flaws 
that exist in our law.
  When my colleague Chairman Shimkus began the effort to reform TSCA in 
the last Congress, I knew the committee could produce a bill. I 
believed we could. I was not convinced, however, that we could pass a 
law; but H.R. 2576 is a decisive step, I believe, in that direction.
  I thank Chairman Shimkus, Chairman Upton, and Ranking Member Pallone 
for their continued cooperation and dedicated effort on behalf of this 
legislation. This truly has been a productive partnership, and the 
result is a good bill, a bill that I am pleased to support.
  H.R. 2576 is the result of much discussion, much work, and compromise 
by all parties involved. While no one group gets all that they might 
have hoped for in this legislation, every stakeholder group gets 
something that they need. Frankly, we all need a functional, fair, and 
reliable Federal program of chemical regulation.

[[Page 10257]]

  Industry gains a fair, predictable Federal program for chemical 
regulation, a program that will inspire public confidence in the safety 
of their products. In the context of our global economy, that is an 
important asset for doing business both here and in other countries.
  The public health and environmental communities gain a Federal 
program in which EPA evaluates chemicals and, based on those 
evaluations, will act to regulate chemicals the Agency determines 
present a risk to health or a risk to the environment.
  Under current law, in order to regulate a chemical, EPA must 
demonstrate that the benefits of regulating outweigh the costs. Under 
H.R. 2576, EPA's evaluation and decision on whether to act will be 
based solely on risk factors, risk factors alone.
  Considerations of cost will be addressed when the Agency selects 
among different regulatory options to reduce chemical exposures. That 
is a major gain--a major gain--for public health and a major gain for 
the environment.
  H.R. 2576 is a good bill. It offers significant improvements over our 
current law. I know many Members have concerns about states' rights and 
State preemption provisions in TSCA. I share those concerns.
  There is State preemption in current law, and there is State 
preemption in H.R. 2576, but State preemption only occurs when EPA 
takes final--final--action on a chemical, either finding it safe or 
regulating its risks.
  H.R. 2576 maintains a strong role for the States. With those changes 
in TSCA, the States will have a more active and credible partner in 
this effort at the Federal level.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Shimkus, Chairman Upton, and Ranking 
Member Pallone for their excellent work on this bill. I appreciate the 
constructive partnership that we formed in working together on this 
legislation. We worked through many difficult issues and found that 
common ground.
  I look forward to continuing to work together as this bill moves on 
to the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman.
  I urge my colleagues to end the ineffective chemical policy that we 
have had for four decades and to support H.R. 2576.
  I, too, would like to thank some individuals who are very pertinent 
to this discussion and final product. I thank David McCarthy from the 
subcommittee staff on the majority side and Jerry Couri from the 
subcommittee staff, Jackie Cohen from our subcommittee staff on the 
Democratic side, and Chris Sarley of Chairman Shimkus' personal office 
staff, and Jean Fruci of my personal staff, the legislative director 
for my Congressional office.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2576, 
the TSCA Modernization Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this bipartisan 
legislation that will update the Toxic Substances Control Act, our 
Nation's primary statute regulating the use and safety of commercial 
chemicals for the first time since it was enacted in 1976.
  This legislation will directly address many of current TSCA's biggest 
flaws, including eliminating the ``least burdensome'' requirement and 
explicitly clarifying the law's safety standard excludes any 
consideration of costs.
  This bill would require EPA to consider the risks to vulnerable 
subpopulations, like children, pregnant women, workers, and set 
restrictions if necessary to protect them.
  The TSCA Modernization Act will go a long way towards ensuring that 
all American families--especially for families of chemical facility 
workers and fence line communities in our congressional district in 
Houston and Harris County, Texas--are protected from potentially 
harmful chemicals and bring needed regulatory clarity to this important 
sector of our Nation's economy.
  I would like to thank both Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko 
of the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy and Chairman 
Upton and Ranking Member Pallone of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce and their staffs for the hard work and willingness to work 
together to make TSCA reform a reality.
  I would also like to personally thank my legislative director, Sergio 
Espinosa, who has worked on this for three terms, I think, Mr. Speaker.
  I want to ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join us 
and vote in support of this important legislation.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, we all know that our chemical regulatory 
system is badly broken and that it has been broken for a very long 
time. When it comes to chemicals, weak statutory authority and limited 
resources have prevented the EPA from fulfilling its mission of 
protecting public health and the environment. Current law is so weak 
that the EPA famously could not even use it to ban the use of asbestos 
despite overwhelming evidence that asbestos poses serious risks to 
human health.
  Even when the EPA can successfully regulate a chemical under the 
Toxic Substances Control Act, which we know as TSCA--which has happened 
only five times--they must do so using a flawed cost-benefit analysis 
that prioritizes profits over health and safety. These are just a few 
of the many serious flaws of the current system.
  While the TSCA Modernization Act does not address all of these 
problems, it does take several important steps forward that will help 
improve the health and safety of consumers and their families. It 
finally ensures that health, not cost, is the standard by which the 
safety of chemicals is evaluated; it maintains critical State chemical 
safety laws, such as California's landmark Proposition 65; and for the 
first time, it includes explicit protections for vulnerable 
populations, such as pregnant mothers, children, and seniors.
  I want to commend Chairmen Upton and Shimkus, Ranking Members Pallone 
and Tonko, and the committee staffs for all of their hard work and 
commitment for making this a truly bipartisan bill. It is far from 
perfect, but it has improved at every step of the process, and I hope 
that continues. Should the Senate pass its TSCA reform package, I hope 
this cooperation continues in conference so we can produce an even 
stronger bill.
  Mr. Speaker, for far too long, our chemical laws have prioritized 
profits over human health and safety. This bill would put an end to 
this inequity and to many other serious failings of the current system. 
The TSCA Modernization Act is a good compromise and is a major step 
forward. That is why I will be voting for it today, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2576, the TSCA 
Modernization Act.
  Since the 111th Congress, a lot of us have been wrestling very 
seriously with how to reform the EPA's current regime for reviewing and 
regulating chemicals. Everyone agrees that the statute has been broken 
for most of the decades that it has been in effect. Devising a new 
program, though, that would both enable the EPA to take meaningful 
action on the chemicals that truly need regulation and that will 
protect the health of our citizens was an uphill battle in deeply 
partisan

[[Page 10258]]

times; yet what we have come up with is a true compromise. We have 
focused on the aspects of current law that really need to be addressed, 
and we have developed language that will move the ball forward.
  As all of the other speakers have said, our work is not done after 
the vote later today. The Senate, in working its own will, has come up 
with a reform bill that takes a distinctly different approach. We have 
a lot to reconcile. It is important that legislation makes it to the 
President's desk that will equip the EPA to protect us from toxic 
chemicals over the long term. Ultimately, we will be judged by how well 
the new law works, not only over the next few years, but over the 
coming decade.
  I want to add my thanks, Mr. Speaker, to Congressman Frank Pallone, 
Congressman Shimkus, Congressman Tonko, Congressman Gene Green, all of 
our staffs, and, in particular, to my legislative director, Eleanor 
Bastian, who has been working on this bill ever since we really started 
seriously negotiating.
  One last thing--and I think it is important--is that Congresswoman 
Capps mentioned that this bill will not preempt State law and that it 
will not preempt Proposition 65. This was an important provision, and I 
want to thank Congressman Shimkus and his staff for working on it with 
us because it is important that we have these kinds of protections that 
we need.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I will just say thank you again to Mr. Shimkus, in 
particular, for reaching out to me and to Mr. Tonko on this legislation 
and for making it bipartisan.
  I almost feel anticlimactic today because I know how much hard work 
has gone into getting this bill to the floor. I know we are going to 
work hard after it passes in the House to get it passed in the Senate 
and to have a law that goes to the President, so I urge all of my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the purpose of engaging 
Chairman Shimkus in colloquy. First, I would like to thank Mr. Shimkus 
for working with me during and after markup to make sure that the 
important role of states in chemical regulation is preserved. In the 
absence of a strong federal chemical regulatory program, many states 
have taken action to protect their citizens from toxic chemicals. 
Strong laws are in place in many states to address chemicals including 
BPA, flame retardants, and more. Through the Committee process, 
explicit protections have been added for state laws and state common 
laws, including important changes taken from the amendment that I 
offered at markup. My amendment was drafted in response to the letter 
sent by 12 State Attorneys General, which I would like to introduce now 
into the Record. Again, I appreciate you working with me to address the 
points they raised. It is my understanding that nothing in this bill 
would preempt or otherwise affect existing state laws or private rights 
of action, unless there is an actual conflict between a federal 
requirement and a state requirement. Is that correct?
  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.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, as you know, over twenty-five years ago, the 
people of California enacted a landmark ballot measure known as 
Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires persons who expose individuals 
to certain chemicals that are known to cause cancer or reproductive 
harm to display a clear and reasonable warning. Proposition 65 
enforcement actions by the state and by private parties have played a 
crucial role in reducing childhood exposure to harmful chemicals. This 
state law operates somewhat differently from other state laws related 
to chemicals, so I want to ask specifically about the protection for 
Proposition 65 in the bill. It is my understanding that nothing in this 
bill would preempt or otherwise impact enforcement of Proposition 65 or 
the ability of the State to continue to authorize citizen enforcement 
of Proposition 65, unless there is an actual conflict. Is that 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.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, and just to be clear, the waiver provision in 
Section 18(b) of current law, which could protect additional state 
laws, is not changed by this bill?

[[Page 10259]]


  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this is a long time coming. The breakthrough 
bipartisan bill before us today is the culmination of a multi-year, 
multi-Congress effort to modernize our decades-old chemical safety 
laws. The Toxic Substances Control Act, which was signed into law by 
Michigan's own President Jerry Ford, needs to be updated for the 21st 
century. And this thoughtful bill improves chemical safety while 
encouraging continued innovation and economic growth and gives the 
public greater confidence in the safety of American-made chemicals and 
the products that contain them.
  There are six core elements that form the basis of the TSCA 
Modernization Act. First, this bill helps markets work and provides 
certainty. Chemicals will get reviewed and will be ruled either safe 
for intended uses, or in need of a risk management rule. Once a 
decision is made by EPA, that decision will apply in all the states. 
Manufacturers won't have to produce 50 different product versions for 
50 different states.
  Second, the bill respects the role of states and individual rights of 
action. Tort and contract claims are explicitly protected in the pre-
emption section.
  Third, any regulation of a chemical will be guided by common sense. 
Is the regulation cost effective? If use in an article were restricted, 
will exposure actually go down? Is there a feasible replacement? Is the 
transition period fair? Without good answers to these questions 
regulation will not move forward.
  Fourth, the bill will build confidence for consumers and the general 
public that chemicals on the market anywhere in the U.S. are safe, and 
not just because EPA says so. EPA must evaluate risk against the most 
stringent science standards we've ever enacted for chemicals. And the 
science has to be transparent and hold up to objective peer review.
  Fifth, the bill lets government and industry actually collaborate. 
Chemical manufacturers are given the choice to ask for and get a 
chemical evaluated. And EPA must meet strict action deadlines. If the 
science indicates the chemical is safe, then EPA must say so, and that 
determination will be the law in all 50 states.
  Finally, the bill encourages innovation, largely by protecting 
confidential business information. New technology is not likely to 
appear if the secret formula can be stolen and copied the minute a new 
product appears. This bill would prevent that from happening.
  Each of the elements of the bill are not trade-offs, each provision 
works to the support the others. It would not accomplish much good for 
EPA to evaluate all these chemicals if the results were not going to 
apply in all the states. It does not make sense for the government to 
be writing safety regulations if the result is no real improvement in 
safety. And a manufacturer is not likely to cooperate with the 
government in chemical evaluation if to do so means giving up a trade 
secret.
  The TSCA Modernization Act solves each of these concerns, as all 
these safeguards work together.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a big day. The TSCA Modernization Act is good 
for consumers, good for trade, and good for the environment. I 
especially commend Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Tonko, and Mr. Latta 
for their dedication and hard work in putting together a bill that can 
be signed into law. Let's put jobs and the economy first and vote yes.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, our country's federal toxic chemicals 
regulation has been broken for decades. Since Congress first passed the 
Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976, the EPA has placed restrictions 
on only five of the estimated 60,000 chemicals in commerce, and since 
the EPA's ban on asbestos was overturned in 1991, zero chemicals have 
been regulated. This law is in dire need of reform.
  While toxic chemicals regulations have floundered for decades at the 
federal level, California and several other states have passed 
important laws to protect communities and notify consumers. These state 
laws, including California's landmark Proposition 65, have motivated 
many companies to reduce or eliminate toxic chemicals from their 
products.
  It was with these state laws in mind that I offered an amendment at 
the Energy & Commerce Committee markup of this legislation to clarify 
its impact on state laws. My amendment was based on the recommendations 
of 12 State Attorneys General who wrote to the Committee: California, 
New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Iowa, Oregon, Maryland, Vermont, 
Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire.
  I'm pleased that the final version of the bill before us today, as 
well as the Committee Report on the bill and the Congressional Record, 
addresses several of the issues I raised along with the 12 Attorneys 
General who wrote to the Committee with their concerns.
  First, the final text of the bill includes my amendment's 
clarification to ensure states can continue to enforce existing laws 
unless specifically preempted. Without this change, the bill could have 
been interpreted to only grandfather ongoing enforcement actions, 
rather than all existing state laws and regulations.
  Second, the sponsor of the bill, my good friend Mr. Shimkus of 
Illinois, clarified in a colloquy with me that no existing state laws 
or requirements will be preempted by this bill unless they actually 
conflict with federal requirements. Mr. Shimkus also confirmed on the 
Record that the bill is not intended to interfere with the operation of 
Proposition 65 or the ability of the State of California or private 
citizens to enforce that landmark law.
  Third, the multi-state Attorney General letter called for further 
clarification that the bill is not intended to preempt state 
monitoring, information reporting, and disclosure laws. These important 
laws help keep regulators and communities informed about the presence 
of toxic chemicals. I'm pleased that the Committee Report states that 
``the Committee expects that these type of requirements would generally 
fall outside the scope of preemption.''
  With these important changes and clarifications, the preemption and 
savings provisions in the TSCA Modernization Act are substantially 
improved and I appreciate the willingness of Chairmen Upton and Shimkus 
to make these improvements to the bill.
  The TSCA law is long overdue for reform and with the above changes 
included in the TSCA Modernization Act, I support it and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2576, the TSCA 
Modernization Act. While this bill is not perfect, it is a good step 
toward better protecting Americans and our environment from dangerous 
chemicals.
  Current law, the Toxic Substance Control Act, passed in the 1970s and 
has been a failure. While its name implies that it gave the 
Environmental Protection Agency the authority to ensure the safety of 
many chemicals, in reality, its scope is severely limited and the 
standards for action are unreasonably high. It also restricted testing 
to thousands of chemicals that were already in use when it passed. 
Since it was enacted, EPA has partially regulated only five chemicals 
under the law.
  Democrats have been calling for TSCA reform for many years, and today 
we are considering the first meaningful change. While it does not go as 
far as previous Democratic proposals, it represents significant 
progress over current law. It makes it easier for EPA to test chemicals 
using a risk-based approach, explicitly protects vulnerable 
populations, and provides more resources to get the job done. It also 
allows EPA to move more quickly to address the most toxic and harmful 
chemicals.
  Our work is not done--the Senate is finalizing its proposal and we 
will have to reconcile our differences. I will continue to advocate for 
strong protections for American families and our environment. I am 
voting yes today to take an important step forward in that effort.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2576, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. 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 motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________