[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.

                          ____________________