[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 8, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H23-H30]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 535, PFAS ACTION ACT OF 2019
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 779 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 779
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, 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. 535) to require the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to designate per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous substances under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980. 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 amendments specified in this resolution and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill,
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 116-45, modified by the
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No
further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules. Each such further amendment may be offered only in
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. 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 one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko),
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
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a structured rule for House Resolution 779, providing for
consideration of H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment by
Chairman Pallone, makes in order 22 amendments, and provides one motion
to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to start the new year and the new
congressional session with our first legislative action being a rule
for a comprehensive, bipartisan bill to address a threat to our
constituents, both across Pennsylvania and across the country.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, have
been manufactured and used in the United States for over 60 years.
These chemicals are found in everyday products like food packaging
materials, cleaning products, nonstick cookware, stain- and water-
resistant materials, firefighting foams, and more.
There are thousands of PFAS chemicals, but two of the most common and
most notorious are PFOA and PFOS, substances used to make Teflon and
Scotchgard, respectively.
PFAS are known as forever chemicals. They do not break down, and they
remain in the environment and other living organisms for decades. PFAS
chemicals are made of one of the strongest carbon bonds possible. As a
result, these substances are extremely persistent in the environment
and are able to be absorbed by humans and wildlife.
PFAS have long been linked with various forms of cancer, including
kidney, liver, and pancreatic cancers; weakened immune systems; low
birth weight; infertility; impaired childhood development; and other
diseases.
Not only are these substances resilient and harmful, but they are now
found in the blood of over 99 percent of Americans.
PFAS contaminate our environment in a variety of ways, particularly
through landfills and wastewater runoff sites. Once these chemicals are
introduced into an area, they leach into the soil and groundwater,
becoming immediate threats to surrounding life.
Analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that more than
1,500 drinking water systems in the United States may be contaminated
with PFAS, affecting up to 110 million Americans from drinking water
alone.
In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 17 sites have been identified as
containing PFAS contamination. Some of these sites are water utilities
and civilian airports, but additional sites like waste incinerators
were included as well. People living in close proximity to waste
incinerators already face a host of environmental risk factors from
polluted air and water. Additional contaminants from PFAS adds insult
to injury for these neglected and often economically distressed areas.
The Department of Defense has identified over 400 military sites
across the U.S. that use or were suspected of having used PFAS in
firefighting foam. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, is home to two of
these former bases where firefighting foam leached into the groundwater
after years of use. These bases are no longer active, but the effects
from PFAS will be felt by residents for generations to come.
My friend and colleague, Congresswoman Madeleine Dean, a founding
member of the PFAS Task Force, helped secure a grant to study the
health effects of PFAS contamination in this area. I commend the work
that she is doing to protect her constituents and to ensure that they
have a water supply that they can rely on for generations to come.
The fact of the matter is that the Federal Government has known about
the dangers presented by PFAS for years. The chemical industry has
known for even longer and, unsurprisingly, has fought tooth and nail
against efforts to regulate their distribution and use.
[[Page H24]]
Despite this, the only action taken against PFAS was in 2006, when
the EPA instituted a voluntary phaseout of PFOA and PFOS instead of
instituting any stronger measures. Recently, the EPA has declined to
promulgate standards on PFAS despite acknowledging the dangers they
present to human and environmental health.
Just as foxes shouldn't guard the henhouse, chemical companies
shouldn't be trusted to regulate themselves. Research on the additional
thousands of PFAS outside of PFOS and PFOA can and should continue, but
thus far, all research has confirmed that PFAS are harmful.
We would not eat food that could potentially cause us harm without
understanding the full range of ramifications first. Why should we put
those risks on our children without first knowing how PFAS will affect
them?
H.R. 535 will provide protections to our communities in the immediate
term and ensure that there are enforceable standards in place for the
long term. This bill would require the EPA to use tools under existing
environmental statutes to require cleanup of sites contaminated with
PFOA and PFOS, set air emission limits, prohibit unsafe incineration of
PFAS, and limit the introduction of new PFAS chemicals into the market.
Further, the PFAS Action Act will limit human exposure to PFAS by
requiring a drinking water standard for PFAS that protects public
health, particularly regarding the health of vulnerable groups like
infants, children, and pregnant women.
Finally, the bill takes the necessary step of designating all PFAS as
hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act.
I would like to recognize and thank my colleague, Congresswoman
Debbie Dingell, for her hard work and tireless efforts to keep
Americans safe from PFAS, as well as Congressman Fred Upton and the
other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee whose bills were
incorporated into H.R. 535.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 535, the bill before us today, lays out an
aggressive, antiscience regulatory framework for addressing
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS,
under several environmental statutes, including the Safe Drinking Water
Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, also known as CERCLA; the Clean Air Act; and the Toxic
Substances Control Act.
This is an unprecedented way of conducting science, counteracting
decades of U.S. environmental policy and likely compromising public
safety, public health, environmental protection, and national defense
efforts.
This bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to
designate all perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl chemical compounds as
hazardous substances within 1 year of enactment of this bill. Since the
enactment of CERCLA, Congress has never--let me repeat, never--
statutorily mandated a substance's designation. That designation shall
be left to the regulatory process, allowing for notice, public input,
and scientific review and analysis.
Designation as a hazardous substance under CERCLA triggers a wide
variety of notifications and response actions. For example, a release
of the designated hazardous substance chemical may require the polluter
to notify the entire populace in the area and/or government entities
and may trigger cleanup/abatement requirements.
Small communities are not going to be able to afford it. It also
attaches strict and retroactive liability without a liability shield
for innocent parties that acted according to the law.
Not only does this bill mandate the designation of the entire class
of PFAS chemicals as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act,
but it also designates the entire PFAS class under CERCLA. That kind of
designation under CERCLA, coupled with the other features of this bill,
would amount to a de facto ban of all PFAS, including the many
lifesaving products that incorporate PFAS.
However, I don't hear my Democratic colleagues here talking about the
PFAS chemicals that are helping people. For instance, the type of PFAS
used in the device in this poster next to me is made by Gore of Gore-
Tex fame. The device plugs a hole in a baby's heart. Again, these
devices help save the lives of babies born with holes in their hearts.
If EPA is forced to designate the entire class of PFAS as hazardous
material, think about how many parents will have to think twice and may
suddenly feel conflicted in giving their babies lifesaving surgery
using devices like this or similar medical devices.
We cannot classify an entire class as hazardous when, in fact, there
are only some bad actors.
Gore's medical products division is centered in Flagstaff, Arizona. I
represent Arizona, and they have a campus in north Phoenix, which is in
my district. This campus has about 700 employees making medical
products. As a whole, Gore has approximately 2,300 employees in Arizona
engaged in the research, development, and manufacturing of medical
devices.
I had the opportunity to tour Gore and its medical products division,
where I got to see firsthand the creative, innovative, and technology-
driven solutions they are cultivating to help cure medical conditions
for Americans. These are FDA- and scientifically approved medical
devices, yet this bill threatens them and threatens the American
people. However, H.R. 535, as amended, mandates multiple aggressive
actions based on a woefully incomplete scientific understanding of
health effects for this diverse class of more than 5,000 chemical
compounds.
We know that PFAS are chemicals used in numerous consumer products
and industrial processes. They are resistant to heat, oils, stains,
grease, and water. Those properties make them important to many
products and processes in commerce, such as firefighting foam,
cellphones, medical devices, Kevlar, semiconductors, solar panels, and
chlorine, and even in our own Department of Defense, including F-16s.
I have Luke Air Force Base in my district. They have trained F-16
pilots for years. Now, they are switching over the F-35s, but they
still train F-16s. This is important to our national defense.
The class of PFAS chemicals numbers more than 5,000. Of those, only
about 29 have developed scientific data and methods. That is 29 out of
5,000.
PFAS are a diverse family of chemicals, which includes a broad range
of substances with different physical, chemical, and toxicological
properties and uses. Hence, the hazard and risk profile of various PFAS
are very different.
{time} 1230
It is neither scientifically accurate nor appropriate to group all
PFAS together or take a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach for this
wide range of substances.
We all want to ensure American citizens are not exposed to dangerous
chemicals. We want to do it sooner rather than later. However, my
Republican colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and
many integral stakeholders have grave doubts that the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly, known
as CERCLA, is the magic bullet for this problem. In fact, it may create
more problems than meet the eye.
This is why numerous letters have been sent to Members of Congress
from relevant stakeholders to urge Congress to oppose provisions that
would circumvent existing, well-established regulatory processes,
predetermine outcomes using inadequate scientific data, and potentially
inhibit effective cleanup of those PFAS that are of the greatest
concern.
Some of these stakeholders, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Airlines for America, Airports Council International--North America,
American Chemistry Council, American Fuel and Petrochemical
Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of
Manufacturers, and more, are the folks dealing with the repercussions
of what we do here in this Chamber. They are the ones representing
hundreds of thousands of jobs
[[Page H25]]
in all 50 States; yet, here we are telling the people who deal with
these issues daily that, no, we don't care what they think. We are
going to move ahead with a partisan and controversial alternative. We
will cost thousands of Americans their jobs in a rush process instead
of working together to do something meaningful.
The bill before us today creates an unrealistic condition that EPA
must require manufacturers and processors to test each chemical in the
entire PFAS class. This testing requirement applies to each of the
5,000 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a task that will be
enormously expensive and time consuming.
I agree, we need to prevent environmental contamination by these
substances. That is why we have. We have recently made huge steps and
taken big actions.
Just last month, we passed the fiscal 2020 National Defense
Authorization Act and various spending bills, where several PFAS
provisions were enacted into law. The laws we passed together on a
bipartisan basis will start making a difference in communities
immediately.
They required substantial reporting and public disclosures, created
grants for drinking water treatment, authorized PFAS research and
detection programs, phased out PFAS in firefighting foam used by the
Department of Defense, and required cooperative cleanup agreements
between the Department of Defense and States for Department of Defense
facilities with PFAS contamination.
The bill signed into law reflected a bicameral compromise and omitted
language from the House's version, H.R. 2500, that would have required
the EPA to designate PFAS as hazardous substances.
We need, here, a consistent and credible approach to regulating these
chemicals that leverages existing frameworks to access the potential
risks associated with PFAS. Our actions should be based on existing
administrative procedures and sound science.
However, last night, when we were reviewing this bill in the Rules
Committee, of which I am a member, I heard numerous times from my
Democratic colleagues that they do not trust the EPA, that they do not
trust their workforce, apparently.
This baffles me. In fiscal year 2019, the EPA employed 14,172
individuals. These thousands of individuals go to work each and every
day to work for EPA's mission. The mission of the EPA is to protect
human health and the environment.
EPA has developed a PFAS Action Plan to address PFAS issues across
multiple environmental mediums. As part of the plan, the Agency, among
other things, has issued interim recommendations for addressing
groundwater contaminated with PFOA and PFOS under Federal cleanup
programs, sent to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency
review a proposed drinking water regulatory determination for PFOA and
PFOS, and is working through the regulatory development process for
listing the PFOA and PFOS as ``hazardous substances'' under CERCLA.
Clearly, action is happening.
However, we need to be working together more. To quote the National
Association of Manufacturers: ``Congressional action should enable and
encourage the appropriate agencies to carry out the risk-based approach
established in existing U.S. environmental law and policy. Congress
should prioritize the cleanup of contaminated sites to protect
communities. Congress should also provide oversight to ensure a
coordinated and timely government response and appropriate the funding
necessary to support sound scientific research and the management,
mitigation, and ongoing monitoring of specific PFAS''--not all PFAS.
However, this bill cannot pass the Senate and cannot become law--and
my Democratic colleagues know that--while the bipartisan Senate-passed
language, as included in the Senate version of the NDAA, could be
signed into law.
The Republican-supported substitute amendment that was introduced in
committee markup consisted of the Senate-passed language on PFAS. It
would still require the EPA to issue regulations covering PFAS, require
the EPA to issue drinking water regulations covering PFAS, and require
the EPA to use appropriate science in issuing these regulations. It
would eliminate the CERCLA/Superfund provisions contained in this bill
because the Senate will not pass them.
Why can we not pass something that could help improve countless lives
and that we know that the Senate will take on and pass?
We should be promoting a consistent, comprehensive approach for
assessing and regulating specific PFAS that takes into account existing
regulatory frameworks. If Congress acts in this area, it should utilize
these frameworks to ensure consistent, science-based regulatory
approaches, transparency, broad stakeholder input, and enforceable
regulations. That is the way we can get something meaningfully passed
through both Chambers and signed into law.
We need to pass a bill that would encourage innovation and production
of new chemicals to replace existing chemicals in commerce, not
disincentivize it, which this bill does.
We need to ensure our constituents are not exposed to dangerous
chemicals.
We need to do our constitutional role in overseeing Federal agencies;
however, we should not be doing so in a way that would make regulation
impractical, eliminate the use of medical-saving devices, or tie the
hands of the Department of Defense.
So let's work together. Let's make some progress that could actually
pass both Chambers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a December 5, 2019,
New York Times article, entitled, ``Government Studying Widely Used
Chemicals Linked to Health Issues.''
[From the New York Times, Dec. 5, 2019]
Government Studying Widely Used Chemicals Linked to Health Issues
(By Eric Lipton)
Warminster, Pa.--Two decades after concern emerged about a
class of chemicals used in everything from Teflon pans to
firefighting foam, the federal government has started the
first in a series of detailed studies of the impact the
chemicals have had on human health.
The goal is to determine what role the chemicals, known
generally as PFAS, play in a long list of health conditions
including thyroid, kidney, liver, cardiovascular and
autoimmune diseases, among other ailments. The studies will
involve thousands of adults and children in eight communities
nationwide, and the findings will help determine just how
extensive of a cleanup is necessary at sites where
groundwater or drinking water supplies have been
contaminated.
This is hardly an academic matter in communities like
Warminster, a suburb of Philadelphia, where Hope Martindell
Grosse grew up just across the street from the now-defunct
Naval Air Warfare Center. The base is one of about 200
military installations around the country where groundwater
has been contaminated by the chemicals, including at least 24
where drinking water was affected.
Ms. Grosse and several members of her family have had a
series of health problems, including autoimmune disease,
cancer and other unusual conditions, such as a missing set of
adult teeth in both of her daughters.
Her childhood home was just 25 feet from the Navy base and
for decades she and her family consumed water from a well in
their front yard. Even after the house was connected to a
municipal water system, the water coming to the house was
still contaminated because the local supplier realized only
about three years ago that it was also using groundwater
contaminated by PFAS. The utility was then forced to buy
water from outside the area.
Earlier tests of about 200 area residents have already
confirmed high levels of PFAS in the bloodstream of people
who lived near the former Warminster base and a second nearby
military facility, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base
Willow Grove.
``My greatest concern is what this means for my children,''
Ms. Grosse said. ``I know my kids have this chemical in
them.''
But what remains unclear is how strong the association is
between PFAS exposure and various health ailments.
It is a question that federal scientists and researchers
hope to answer, at least in part, with this first multisite
health effects study. It will be conducted in New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, New Jersey, Massachusetts,
New York and California, in communities where drinking water
is known to have been contaminated.
In total about 8,000 adults and 2,500 children who lived in
areas where drinking water was known to have been
contaminated with PFAS will have blood and urine sampled and
medical histories checked. The initial round of $7 million in
grants to fund the work has already been distributed.
[[Page H26]]
The first study, in the Pease, N.H., area, is underway and
enrolling participants.
Delays in settling on and approving research protocol for
the work in the seven other locations mean that actual tests
on participants will most likely be put off until at least
the end of next year. But researchers at some of those sites
have started to collect historical information on drinking
water contamination.
In most of the locations, the study will not specifically
look for apparent correlations between exposure to PFAS and
cancer, because the sample size is not large enough to
produce statistically significant results, federal officials
said.
But in Pennsylvania, researchers will be gathering data on
hundreds of thousands of cancer cases in the area to see if
there appears to be a high incidence of certain cancers among
those exposed to the contaminated water, said Resa M. Jones,
a Temple University epidemiologist who will be overseeing
this work.
Public concern about the chemicals first emerged in the
late 1990s in communities including Parkersburg, W.Va., which
was home to a DuPont chemical manufacturing plant where one
form of PFAS was made, after a series of illnesses emerged
among area residents and even farm animals.
The discovery of this threat in West Virginia, and the
struggle to get DuPont to cover medical costs, are the
subject of a new movie, called ``Dark Waters.''
Medical studies completed around 2012 in Parkersburg
ultimately confirmed a ``probable link'' between the exposure
to PFAS chemicals and testicular cancer, kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, among other conditions. Animal studies have
also suggested links between exposure and health problems in
humans, federal authorities say.
Since then, certain versions of the chemical--there are
thousands of different formulas--have been removed from the
market, including two that were once widely used in nonstick
cooking pans and stain-resistant clothes. But there remain
concerns that some of the replacement chemicals may cause
some of the same illnesses.
The new research now getting underway--which was authorized
by Congress through the Defense Department after a bipartisan
push led by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New
Hampshire--will focus on exposures that are occurring outside
any workplace, due to exposure to contaminated drinking
water.
``This is an attempt to produce some important knowledge
that can be useful not only for a particular community but
more generally across the United States, in a large
population,'' he said.
The Environmental Protection Agency is separately also
moving toward establishing federal cleanup standards for
contaminated areas and also to decide on what the national
safety limit for PFAS-related chemicals in drinking water
should be, questions the agency has been considering for at
least a decade.
Robert A. Bilott, an Ohio lawyer who has spent two decades
pursing litigation against PFAS manufacturers including
DuPont, said the research was a welcome step toward
developing a better understanding of the health consequences
of PFAS. But he said he remained determined to push the
manufacturers to pay for an even larger study that would look
in a more comprehensive way for correlations between PFAS
exposure and cancer.
``I am glad to see the federal government is stepping in
and recognizing more needs to be done,'' said Mr. Bilott,
whose story is the focus of the ``Dark Waters'' film and who
has also written a book on his two-decade legal fight on the
issue. ``But I don't want it to be a shield against more
comprehensive studies that need to be done.''
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing is not an abstract
issue, as this article outlines. These forever chemicals are adversely
impacting real people right now, and they can be causing families to
confront health issues like autoimmune disease, cancer, even children
missing their set of adult teeth.
So not only do we need more research, we need strong action now, and
that is why the legislation we are considering here today is so
important.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms.
Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon for granting
me the time and Chairman Pallone and particularly Congresswoman Dingell
for their leadership on PFAS issues.
I rise today in support of H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019.
This bipartisan bill will take much-needed and long-overdue action on
these harmful forever chemicals.
These pervasive and dangerous chemicals pose serious risks to both
human health and to our environment, and the delay in taking action on
them has been inexcusable. They are known hormone disruptors, and
studies link the exposure to them to kidney and testicular cancer, to
thyroid disease and other health problems.
PFAS chemicals are concentrated in human and animal blood and tissue,
and they can remain there for years. It is estimated that 99 percent of
all Americans have PFAS in their blood.
In my home State of Maine, PFAS was first discovered in the
groundwater at a former military installation due to the use of fire
foam containing PFAS. But PFAS contamination has been found in our
public water supply, in soil, in agriculture, and in animal products.
Once in the environment, PFAS will never break down. That is why they
are called forever chemicals, so cleanup is essential to protect people
in our environment.
Companies and regulators have known about the risks of products like
Teflon, Scotchgard, and, yes, Gore-Tex for decades but have failed to
take action to protect or inform the American people. The Department of
Defense has repeatedly refused to clean up PFAS contamination at
military sites across the Nation.
Because the Environmental Protection Agency has dragged its feet, we
have no enforceable standards for PFAS levels in our drinking water,
leaving communities without the information or the funding to protect
our citizens, and there has been no action to fund cleanup because
there was no requirement to clean up these dangerous chemicals. It is
truly time to act.
Some of the things that the PFAS Action Act will do:
It will finally designate PFAS as a hazardous chemical, thereby
ensuring PFAS contamination is cleaned up and polluters pay for their
actions;
It will require the EPA to develop national drinking water
regulations to test and monitor levels of PFAS in our public drinking
supplies; and
It will add two types of forever chemicals to the EPA's Toxic Release
Inventory so we will finally know who is releasing them into our water,
soil, and air, and we can hold them accountable.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in taking action for the
health of our communities and our environment and to vote ``yes'' on
the rule and ``yes'' on the final bill.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the other gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I thank
Representative Scanlon for allowing me this brief time.
PFAS water contamination continues to harm America's health. The
EPA's website describes some of the effects: ``low infant birth
weights, effects on the immune system, cancer . . . and thyroid hormone
disruption.'' Our constituents deserve better. Our constituents have a
right to clean water.
Finally, we are making some progress. Over the last year, we have
considered and passed more PFAS legislation than any previous Congress,
and this week's PFAS Action Act marks our most comprehensive step.
We also see progress at the local level. In my district, contaminated
surface water runoff from Horsham Air Guard Station has polluted local
wells and waterways for years.
{time} 1245
Last week, the Air Force released the funds for a $2.8 million
containment and filtration system at the runoff site. I commend them
for their leadership. Still, however, much work remains.
PFAS contaminants exist on more than 400 military bases nationwide
and threaten the health and safety of those who live nearby. Addressing
this challenge fully requires a national solution. That means listing
PFAS as a toxin, banning its manufacture, regulating its disposal,
cleaning up our water supplies, and providing health testing and
treatment to everyone who needs it.
I thank Representative Dingell for her tenacity in drafting and
passing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. I have been on
the Energy and Commerce Committee a long time. I am the ranking member
on the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee which has
jurisdiction on this.
We are in this debate today because emotion is trumping science. We
are
[[Page H27]]
not willing to give the scientific community enough time to say that
this class of chemicals is bad. We want to do something we have never
done. We want to legislatively ban a chemical by legislative fiat, not
by doing the due diligence of the scientific process.
I got lectured last night. We get lectured all the time about how
Republicans don't believe in science on the climate change debate.
Well, then the contrary is true. Democrats don't believe in science
to allow us to have an adequate debate on these chemicals. When we come
to the floor, we talk about PFAS like it is one chemical. PFAS stands
for perfluorinated or polyfluorinated compounds. There are over 7,800
of these types of compounds. Some are long-chain compounds; some are
small-chain compounds, and they are in every aspect of our life.
In fact, the FDA has approved PFAS for food container linings. Let me
get that right. Things that are touching our food, the FDA has
evaluated it and said, this packaging material is safe.
But no, that is not good enough for my colleagues, because emotion,
which we operate on here, especially on the floor of the House--I
taught history and the Constitution, and we are supposed to be the
emotive body. So this is what we do, as House Members we come to the
floor, we cry out we are being harmed; government, save us, without
doing the due diligence of science.
And some of this was mentioned by my colleague, Mrs. Lesko, on her
debate. But in the F-16--here are all the components that are made that
have some form of poly- or perfluorinated compounds in the F-16.
She used one of our favorites; why is this compound good in medical
devices? It is great because--why is it good in military field jackets
for our men and women in uniform? Because it repels water. That is what
makes it great. That keeps our soldiers dry.
I was an infantryman. I would rather be dry in a monsoon than wet,
and that is what Gore-Tex or the Gore technology that uses the PFAS
type of chemical does.
We think there are two that we need to be concerned about--you have
heard about it in the debate; we will hear about it more--PFOA and
PFOS. But that doesn't mean the other 7,798 chemical formulations are
bad.
But what this bill that they are going to be bringing to the floor is
saying, ban them all, even though the FDA said for food packaging it is
safe. Even though it is a lifesaving medical device that is implanted
in the heart of a child who has a hole in their heart, ban that. Don't
worry about it. We will figure out something else to do.
The rule is bad because there were opportunities for the bill to be
fixed and brought to the floor. One dealt with medical devices. A
cardiothoracic surgeon, Larry Bucshon, from Indiana, he offered an
amendment to say, if you are going to have this implantable device, and
then the device is not used and it is put in the landfill, please don't
call that a toxic chemical, because these things save lives. That
wasn't allowed in order.
We are moving into an electric vehicle world. Guess what all these
components of an EV vehicle are going to be? Components with PFAS-
connected chemicals.
Lithium batteries, what do you think they have in them? PFAS-
connected.
So we have this next chart. Automotive parts containing
fluoropolymers. Here they are. Starter motor, wiper motor, humidity
sensor, engine control unit.
I understand my colleague from Michigan and the firefighter foam
debate. But what do you think this does to the automobile industry,
where you have all these components that are made up of some form?
So what we have been trying to do in working with our colleagues is
say, let's find the ones we can agree upon and move upon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Illinois an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. So let's find the ones that we can agree upon and move
into law.
We worked diligently, and it was mentioned before--so the debate is
also going to come and say, Republicans hate people, we hate health.
Nothing is going to be done. We have to save the Republic, right? Not
true.
Even though I am an authorizer, as I said in the Rules Committee, we
don't like when other committees usurp our authorization, right,
chairman? And we don't like when appropriators do it. But they did it
right at the end of the year.
In the National Defense Authorization Act, it requires EPA to mandate
that drinking water systems monitor unregulated PFAS. Click that off.
We did it.
Provide grants to communities to address this issue. Checkmark. We
did that.
Requires new reporting of PFAS under the Toxic Release Inventory
Program. We did that.
Requires manufacturers and processors of PFAS to submit health and
safety information to the EPA. Another checkmark.
Guidance for appropriate destruction of PFAS, restriction of long
chain.
Let me say something that is really problematic about this bill. It
bans all new uses of PFAS chemicals. We know science creates healthier
environments. So if we are able to create a PFAS system that may not be
a major concern, we can't bring it to market because this bill bans it.
Remember, we are talking about 7,800 formulations.
It was also mentioned by my colleague that, in the omnibus bill, 20
million more dollars to go to communities to address this problem.
So as we go through this debate, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
They should have brought more amendments allowed to make the bill
better.
Having said that, we can go home--and we did--saying we have
addressed this problem; and this bill, that takes a terrible provision
of doing something we haven't done in 40 years, ever, legislatively ban
a chemical.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to say, in support of the position that
was adopted by my friend, Mr. Shimkus, there are a lot of things that
the appropriators do around here that I don't like.
I rise today in full support of H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of
2019. This important piece of legislation will significantly help
communities around the country that have contaminated water supplies
due to their PFAS chemicals.
This bill is also an extension of the good work that the House
accomplished last year with many provisions relating to PFAS
contamination in the National Defense Authorization Act.
One community in my district, Westfield, Massachusetts, has been
particularly affected by these substances because of the past use of
certain types of firefighting foams for the aircraft fires at Barnes
Air National Guard base. Unfortunately, the situation at Westfield is
hardly unique. For years, cities and towns around the Nation have been
trying to resolve this problem with very little help from the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Provisions in this bill, however, will ensure that the EPA finally
does their part to set safe drinking water standards and to include
these hazardous chemicals in the Superfund regulations.
Additionally, this regulation will require health testing for all
PFAS substances and establish a grant program to help those communities
affected to clean up their water supplies.
Mr. Speaker, as someone who has worked for many years with the city
of Westfield, and heard from my constituents aggressively on this
issue, I am glad the House is providing some aid to many of these
communities and ensuring our drinking water is clear of these
chemicals.
As a member of the Congressional PFAS Task Force, I want to applaud
the hard work that has gone into this legislation and the effort of
citizens from areas affected by PFAS for their advocacy.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to consider an amendment offered by my colleague, Representative
Shimkus,
[[Page H28]]
that was not made in order. The alternative could actually pass the
Senate and could, therefore, become law and help people.
Isn't that our goal?
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
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
gentlewoman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, this amendment strikes section 2 through
section 18 of the bill and replaces it with a provision mandating the
cleanup of PFOA and PFOS contamination at Department of Defense
facilities, section 2, and a provision mandating that EPA establish
national primary drinking water regulations for PFOA and PFOS within 2
years, as well as expedite the setting of such regulations for other
PFAS chemicals, section 3.
H.R. 535 requires aggressive regulatory responses to the diverse
class of PFAS chemicals with little regard to science or risk
assessment. This is an unprecedented way of conducting science,
counteracting decades of U.S. environmental policy, and likely
compromising public safety, public health, and environmental
protection.
This alternative that I am proposing simply takes away some of the
more problematic provisions and gives H.R. 535 a plausible way to
passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this is the only thing that can get signed
into law. We have the Statement of Administration Policy put out last
night that said, in this form, he would veto the bill.
But more challenging is the fact that numerous colleagues on the
other side of the building have said they are done.
We worked with the four corners to address a compromise. What this
amendment does is help move the ball forward that, unfortunately, my
Democrat colleagues could not say yes to when we had three of the four
corners supported; House Republicans, Senate Democrats, Senate
Republicans.
So part of this exercise is to say, oh, you know, we really screwed
up. Now we have got to show the public we are doing something when we
rejected a four-corner compromise that could have been signed into law.
So what we do is--the Lesko amendment is the language, as I
mentioned, that House Democrat and committee leaders rejected as part
of the NDAA; so we are trying to then move and get the final portion of
the most-agreed upon project.
It requires drinking water standards for the best-known PFAS in 2
years, using a science and risk-based approach, and creates an
expedited pathway for PFAS in the future.
Listen, I would rather use total science. I don't want to use
emotion. But the problem is, science takes time and emotion doesn't.
{time} 1300
They have to show activity, but if FDA has said some of these
compounds are safe for food packaging, how do we say they are all bad?
Let me say that again. FDA has said some of these compounds are safe
for packaging of food. How do we ban 7,800 different permutations of
the PFAS?
I would not have drafted this proposal this way. There are some ideas
in it that give me pause. But overall, I know how to say yes to solve
problems when they need solving. Making compromise means supporting
things you may not be comfortable with in order to get something
everyone can live with. Don't make the perfect be the enemy of the
good. Take the olive branch. Solve PFAS. Reject partisanship over
problem-solving.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the Lesko amendment.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a January 8 letter
from over 20 environmental groups, including Earthjustice, the Center
for Environmental Health, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned
Scientists, all in favor of this legislation.
January 8, 2020.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Minority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steve Scalise,
Minority Whip,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Minority Leader
McCarthy, Minority Whip Scalise and Members of the U.S. House
of Representatives: On behalf of our millions of members and
supporters, the undersigned non-governmental organizations
write today to urge you to vote YES on H.R. 535, the PFAS
Action Act.
Toxic PFAS chemicals have now been confirmed in the water
of more than 1,400 communities, including nearly 300 military
installations, and studies have linked PFAS to serious health
problems, including cancer. H.R. 535 will build on the
progress made in the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY 2020 by restricting industrial releases of PFAS into our
air and water, setting a drinking water standard for PFOA and
PFOS in tap water, and by kick-starting the process of
cleaning up legacy PFAS contamination by designating PFOA and
PFOS as hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law.
The science is clear: PFAS have been linked to serious
health problems through decades of animal, worker, and human
studies. Unfortunately, EPA has failed to take steps to
restrict air and water releases, reduce PFAS in our tap
water, or clean up the nation's most contaminated sites. H.R.
535 will set clear deadlines requiring EPA to do just that.
Designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, as
proposed by H.R. 535, will not ban PFAS--but will instead
ensure that the most contaminated sites are finally cleaned
up.
We urge you to vote YES on H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act.
Sincerely,
Christine Santillana, Earthjustice; Patrick MacRoy,
Environmental Health Strategy Center; Shaina Kasper,
Toxics Action Center Campaigns; Andrea Braswell, Center
for Environmental Health; Michael Green, Center for
Environmental Health; Laurene Allen, Merrimack Citizens
for Clean Water; Paul and Diane Cotter, Your Turnout
Gear and PFOA; Pamela Kay Miller, Alaska Community
Action on Toxics; Tara Thorntom, Endangered Species
Coalition; Dalal Aboulhosn, Sierra Club; Meghan Boian,
Southern Environmental Law Center; Stel Bailey, Fight
For Zero; Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action; Colin O'Neil,
Environmental Working Group; John Rumpler, Environment
America; Pamitha Weerasinghe, Union of Concerned
Scientists; Loreen Hackett, #PfoaProjectNY; Sabina
Perez, Office of Senator Perez, 35th Guam Legislature;
Joanne Stanton, Buxmont Coalition for Safer Water;
Glenn Watkins, National Wildlife Federation; Hope
Grosse, Buxmont Coalition for Safer Water.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
passage of the PFAS Action Act.
This bill will build on the progress we made in the National Defense
Authorization Act for 2020 by setting restrictions on PFAS
contamination moving forward and cleaning up existing contaminations.
PFAS chemicals are a class of chemicals that could be cancer-causing.
They are called forever chemicals because they never leave your body.
They can be found in Teflon, Scotchgard, firefighting foams, and food
packaging. Increasingly, contamination from PFAS has been found in our
food and our water supply, as well.
As many as 100 million Americans could be drinking tap water
contaminated with PFAS, according to the Environmental Working Group.
This is alarming because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
has said exposure to PFAS can lower pregnancy rates, interfere with
human body hormones, increase cholesterol levels, affect immune
systems, and increase risks of cancer, while also affecting the
learning, growth, and behavior of children and infants. This is
serious.
This fall, I held a briefing of the Congressional Food Safety Caucus,
where leading experts presented the dangers of the use of PFAS in food
packaging and how these chemical additives can contaminate our food.
That is why I have called for a ban on PFAS in food packaging, and I am
proud to have joined Congresswoman Chellie Pingree to ask the
Government Accountability Office to review the actions that are being
taken at the Federal level to evaluate the prevalence and the risk of
chemical food contamination.
There is no time for delay. The PFAS Action Act of 2019 is a
comprehensive
[[Page H29]]
approach to protecting our communities from PFAS contamination. I
commend my Democratic colleagues, especially Congresswoman Debbie
Dingell and Chairman Frank Pallone. This bill will help ensure we are
protecting people from these potentially cancer-causing forever
chemicals.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I emphasize to my friends across the aisle that we should
be bringing legislation to this floor that showcases how we can work
together and how we can protect the public from scientifically proven
unsafe chemicals. However, this package does not.
I hope my colleagues will come to the table and work with the entire
Chamber so we can do more on this important issue, so we can actually
have a bill that could be signed into law, and so we can truly help
Americans.
If my Democratic colleagues truly want to save lives and protect the
public, they will stop pushing through partisan bills like this one
that they know will not be heard in the Senate and, instead, actually
work with Republicans on reasonable legislation to get something done
for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the
underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate again that this is, in fact, a bipartisan
bill.
Mr. Speaker, ensuring the health and safety of our constituents is
one of the chief responsibilities we have as Members of Congress. The
PFAS Action Act will keep Americans safe by stopping the flow of
harmful chemicals into our environment, our drinking water, and the
products we use every day.
The fight to protect our constituents is ongoing. Science has come a
long way in the last 60 years, and we must use those developments to
better inform and address the concerns of all Americans.
One of the lessons we must take from having this debate today is that
we are all better off by having a strong, responsive, and people-
focused EPA. We need an EPA that doesn't treat the American populace
like crash-test dummies for the chemical industry to test their
products on. Asking for forgiveness instead of permission is not an
acceptable tactic when it comes to the health and well-being of our
constituents.
We need an EPA that enforces environmental protections, not one that
lets industry off the hook whenever it isn't in compliance. We need an
EPA that respects hard, indisputable science, not one that willfully
buries its head in the sand to avoid the inevitable.
That is what our constituents want from us, to know that they are not
being put at risk by the decisions we make.
I am proud that this bill will pass the House today. The PFAS Action
Act is a commitment to the American people that this majority will take
a long-overdue step to protect their health and safety.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 779
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution if offered by Representative Shimkus of Illinois
or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 10
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Strike section 2 and all that follows and insert the
following:
SEC. 2. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS FOR PFAS.
Section 1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.
300g-1(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(16) Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall, after
notice and opportunity for public comment, promulgate a
national primary drinking water regulation for perfluoroalkyl
and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which shall, at a minimum,
include standards for--
``(i) perfluorooctanoic acid (commonly referred to as
`PFOA'); and ``(ii) perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (commonly
referred to as `PFOS').
``(B) Alternative procedures.--``(i) In General.--Not later
than 1 year after the validation by the Administrator of an
equally effective quality control and testing procedure to
ensure compliance with the national primary drinking water
regulation promulgated under subparagraph (A) to measure the
levels described in clause (ii) or other methods to detect
and monitor perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in
drinking water, the Administrator shall add the procedure or
method as an alternative to the quality control and testing
procedure described in such national primary drinking water
regulation by publishing the procedure or method in the
Federal Register in accordance with section 1401(1)(D).
``(ii) Levels described.--The levels referred to in clause
(i) are--
``(I) the level of a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl
substance;
''(II) the total levels of perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances; and
``(III) the total levels of organic fluorine.
''(C) Inclusions.--The Administrator may include a
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances on--
``(i) the list of contaminants for consideration of
regulation under paragraph (1)(B)(i), in accordance with such
paragraph; and
``(ii) the list of unregulated contaminants to be monitored
under section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i), in accordance with such
section.
``(D) Monitoring.--When establishing monitoring
requirements for public water systems as part of a national
primary drinking water regulation under subparagraph (A) or
subparagraph (F)(ii), the Administrator shall tailor the
monitoring requirements for public water systems that do not
detect or are reliably and consistently below the maximum
contaminant level (as defined in section 1418(b)(2)(B)) for
the perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances subject to the
national primary drinking water regulation.
``(E) Health risk reduction and cost analysis.--In meeting
the requirements of paragraph (3)(C), the Administrator may
rely on information available to the Administrator with
respect to 1 or more specific perfluoroalkyl or
polyfluoroalkyl substances to extrapolate reasoned
conclusions regarding the health risks and effects of a class
of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances of which the
specific perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances are a
part.
``(F) Regulation of additional substances.--
``(i) Determination.--The Administrator shall make a
determination under paragraph (1)(A), using the criteria
described in clauses (i) through (iii) of that paragraph,
whether to include a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl
substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl
substances in the national primary drinking water regulation
under subparagraph (A) not later than 18 months after the
later of--
``(I) the date on which the perfluoroalkyl or
polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or
polyfluoroalkyl substances is listed on the list of
contaminants for consideration of regulation under paragraph
(1)(B)(i); and
``(II) the date on which--
``(aa) the Administrator has received the results of
monitoring under section 1445(a)(2)(B) for the perfluoroalkyl
or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or
polyfluoroalkyl substances; or
``(bb) the Administrator has received reliable water data
or water monitoring surveys for the perfluoroalkyl or
polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or
polyfluoroalkyl substances from a Federal or State agency
that the Administrator determines to be of a quality
sufficient to make a determination under paragraph (1)(A).
``(ii) Primary drinking water regulations.--
``(I) In general.--For each perfluoroalkyl or
polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or
polyfluoroalkyl substances that the Administrator determines
to regulate under clause (i), the Administrator--
``(aa) not later than 18 months after the date on which the
Administrator makes the determination, shall propose a
national primary drinking water regulation for the
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances; and
``(bb) may publish the proposed national primary drinking
water regulation described in item (aa) concurrently with the
publication of the determination to regulate the
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances.
``(II) Deadline.--
``(aa) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the Administrator publishes a proposed national primary
drinking water regulation under clause (i)(I) and subject to
item (bb), the Administrator shall take final action on the
proposed national primary drinking water regulation.
``(bb) Extension.--The Administrator, on publication of
notice in the Federal Register, may extend the deadline under
item (aa) by not more than 24 months.
``(G) Health advisory.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the
Administrator shall publish a health advisory under paragraph
(1)(F) for a
[[Page H30]]
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances not subject to a
national primary drinking water regulation not later than 1
year after the later of--
``(I) the date on which the Administrator finalizes a
toxicity value for the perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl
substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl
substances; and
``(II) the date on which the Administrator validates an
effective quality control and testing procedure for the
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances.
``(ii) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the
requirements of clause (i) with respect to a perfluoroalkyl
or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances if the Administrator determines
that there is a substantial likelihood that the
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of
perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances will not occur
in drinking water with sufficient frequency to justify the
publication of a health advisory, and publishes such
determination, including the information and analysis used,
and basis for, such determination, in the Federal
Register.''.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
Mrs. LESKO. 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.
____________________