[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H116-H142]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PFAS ACTION ACT OF 2019


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
extraneous material on H.R. 535.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Wild). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 779 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 535.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1816


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Kildee in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
in the first section of House Resolution 779 and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019, is a 
comprehensive package of strategies to regulate PFAS chemicals, clean 
up contamination, and protect public health.
  PFAS are an urgent threat to public health. They are toxic, 
persistent, and being found in the environment across

[[Page H117]]

the country. These ``forever chemicals'' have long been linked with 
adverse health effects, including cancer, immune system effects, 
infertility, impaired child development, high cholesterol, and thyroid 
disease.
  Mr. Chairman, the EPA has known about these risks for decades and has 
allowed this contamination to spread.
  Last year, EPA announced its PFAS Action Plan. It was woefully 
inadequate, and since that time, we have learned that EPA is not even 
keeping the weak commitments it made in that plan. The EPA failed to 
meet key end-of-the-year 2019 deadlines. It failed to produce a 
regulatory determination for drinking water. It failed to produce 
hazard determinations for chemicals under Superfund. It failed to 
initiate reporting under the Toxics Release Inventory.
  The Trump administration is failing hundreds of impacted communities, 
and Congress must act for communities like Hoosick Falls, New York; 
Parchment, Michigan; Parkersburg, West Virginia; and far too many more.
  We need to act on behalf of States like my own State of New Jersey 
that are doing everything they can--adopting protective State drinking 
water standards and pursuing natural resource damage cases--but facing 
strong opposition from Federal agencies under the Trump administration.
  There have been over 500 detections of PFAS in drinking water and 
groundwater sources in New Jersey, and this is simply unacceptable, Mr. 
Chairman.
  It is time for Congress to take action and use every tool available 
to stop the flow of PFAS pollution into our environment and our bodies. 
That is exactly what the PFAS Action Act does.
  This bill requires EPA to immediately designate two PFAS chemicals as 
hazardous substances under Superfund, the two most studied of the PFAS 
chemicals. EPA committed to make this designation in their action plan 
last year but has failed to fulfill that promise.
  The legislation requires that, over a 5-year period, EPA reviews all 
other PFAS chemicals and decide whether to list them under Superfund. 
During that 5 years, the bill will require comprehensive health testing 
of all PFAS chemicals.
  This is a really important point. You may hear my colleagues talk 
today about the need to base decisions on science, and this bill will 
generate that science. The two chemicals will be regulated upfront 
because we already have the science on them. Other PFAS will be 
regulated if, over the next 5 years, the science concludes that they 
are hazardous.
  The bill also includes a moratorium on any new PFAS during that same 
5-year period. This will provide EPA the time it needs to ensure it has 
enough science to really evaluate new PFAS.
  H.R. 535 also requires a drinking water standard that will cover at 
least the two chemicals and others at EPA's discretion. Importantly, 
the drinking water standard will have to protect public health, 
including the health of vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, 
infants, and children. Because treating drinking water to remove PFAS 
is expensive, the bill includes grants for water utilities.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill includes a voluntary PFAS-free label for 
cookware, which may be expanded through amendments to include 
additional categories of consumer products. This label will empower 
consumers to take steps to protect themselves from exposure to PFAS.
  The bill requires guidance for first responders, to help them 
minimize their exposure to PFAS chemicals. This is important because 
PFAS is commonly found in firefighting foams.
  Taken together, this is a serious, comprehensive, and reasonable bill 
that should garner strong bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  I thank Chairman Tonko for all that he did to put this package 
together and, of course, the sponsor of the package, Mrs. Dingell from 
Michigan, who has faced so many problems in your home State, Mr. 
Chairman, where Mrs. Dingell is also very involved.
  The bill includes a number of pieces of legislation before our 
committee by members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as 
other Members of this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

         Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
           Representatives,
                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2020.
     Hon. Frank Pallone,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Pallone: I write concerning H.R. 535, the 
     PFAS Action Act of 2019. There are certain provisions in this 
     legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       In order to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 535, the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure agrees to 
     forgo action on the bill. However, this is conditional on our 
     mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill 
     would not prejudice the Committee with respect to the 
     appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional 
     claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or 
     similar legislation that fall within the Committee's Rule X 
     jurisdiction. I also request that you urge the Speaker to 
     name members of this Committee to any conference committee 
     which is named to consider such provisions.
       Please place a copy of this letter and your response 
     acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 535 on the 
     House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter A. DeFazio,
     Chair.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2020.
     Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman DeFazio: Thank you for consulting with the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce and agreeing to be 
     discharged from further consideration of H.R. 535, the PFAS 
     Action Act of 2019, so that the bill may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor.
       I agree that your forgoing further action on this measure 
     does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of 
     your committee or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives 
     on this measure or similar legislation in the future. I agree 
     that your Committee will be appropriately consulted and 
     involved as this bill or similar legislation moves forward so 
     that we may address any remaining issues within your 
     jurisdiction. I would support your effort to seek appointment 
     of an appropriate number of conferees from your Committee to 
     any House-Senate conference on this legislation.
       I will place our letters on H.R. 535 into the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration of the bill. I appreciate 
     your cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward 
     to continuing to work together as this measure moves through 
     the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                               Frank Pallone, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, many Members on both sides of the aisle have worked 
hard to understand and address the issues related to per- and 
polyfluorinated compounds. While I oppose H.R. 535 for both policy and 
practical reasons, I commend all of my colleagues who have been engaged 
on this issue.
  Before I go into some of the more concerning aspects of this 
legislation, I think it is instructive to highlight a few facts.
  PFAS is not just one or two chemicals. According to the EPA, this 
class of chemicals includes more than 5,000 different substances with 
different properties, applications, and risks. In fact, EPA's master 
list of PFAS on its website includes 7,866 derivations.
  EPA does not have health effects data on the vast majority of PFAS. 
In fact, EPA recently announced scientifically valid methods--that 
means you are able to test to determine what it is--for just 29 of 
these 7,866. We don't have the capability even to understand if it is 
present because we don't have the capability even to identify them.
  EPA has actively engaged in a PFAS action program involving many 
disciplines across the agency. I recently talked to the Administrator 
to urge him to move as quickly as possible with multiple action items 
and timelines.
  Now, enter this bill, H.R. 535. This legislation requires aggressive 
regulatory responses to this diverse class of man-made chemicals 
without regard to science or risk. This is an unprecedented way of 
conducting science and flies in the face of decades of U.S. 
environmental policy. In fact, we have

[[Page H118]]

never legislatively banned a chemical in all the years since the 
Superfund, back in 1980.
  To my colleagues who love to preach science on climate change, I hear 
you, but you cannot walk away from the science debate when it doesn't 
support your policy position. Let me say that again. For my Democratic 
friends who love to preach science, you can't walk away from the 
science debate on this and walk away from the fact that we need a 
scientific study of this. They are trying to have it both ways.
  I know many of my Democratic colleagues think this bill is essential 
because they don't trust the EPA run by this President. I understand 
that is your call. But I would also ask you to think about the mandates 
you are placing on the Environmental Protection Agency, which will far 
outlast this administration. They will legally hamstring future ones 
from facing issues other than PFAS, whether it is lead or climate.
  I mentioned that science-based decisions that have supported EPA's 
work for years are being jettisoned, but that is just one feature. The 
more long-range trouble includes the automatic designation of PFOS and 
PFOA as hazardous substances under the Superfund, which is called the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 
CERCLA.
  This designation may be warranted, but under this bill, it would come 
without knowledge of who is responsible, where PFAS contamination is, 
how serious it is, and without any public comment.
  In fact, my colleagues think that putting it in the Superfund is 
going to solve this problem and that they are going to be able to clean 
it up right away. Well, I have a list here of Superfund sites. The 
Superfund was set up in 1980. We have a site here that is still a 
Superfund site back to 1983.
  So those of you who think, put it in the Superfund, and it is all 
going to be cleaned up, good luck. If you have dealt with this issue, 
it is not going to happen, probably, in your lifetime.
  Don't get me started on the perverse strict, joint and several, and 
retroactive liability to releases of hazardous substances, a trial 
lawyer's bonanza.
  We know the majority understands this is an issue because the rule 
executed provisions relieving airports from Superfund liability. Plus, 
the bill requires EPA to review all 7,864 PFAS in 5 years to determine 
without public comment whether they present a substantial danger.
  We can't do 29 in 20 years. How are we going to do 7,866 chemicals in 
5 years? It just can't be done.
  While a Superfund designation for just PFOS and PFOA may seem 
reasonable, the reality is section 15 of H.R. 535 deems all PFAS as 
hazardous air pollutants under Clean Air Act section 112(b). This 
automatically makes the entire PFAS class hazardous under the Superfund 
law.
  As I mentioned, innocent parties like drinking water utilities that 
just treated what they got from their source water are hostage to 
endless liability for cleanup, regardless of their personal 
contribution. In fact, I would argue they didn't make any contribution. 
Why not exclude the water districts from Superfund liability if they 
are just passthroughs? No, we are taking care of the airports, but we 
are not protecting municipal water systems, co-op water systems, and 
other sources of drinking water, and we are going to put additional 
mandates and costs on them.
  I know communities with PFAS pollution want it cleaned up quickly, 
but nothing, as I said before, with CERCLA is fast. It is always more 
expensive than you think, and the stigma of the designation scars a 
community's economy and dampens its future prospects.
  Other significant problems with this legislation include section 4, 
which places a commercial moratorium on new PFAS chemicals for 5 years, 
even though Federal law already prevents any unsafe chemical from 
entering the market until EPA scientifically reviews it and determines 
its safety. This delays cleaner, greener, and safer chemicals from 
coming on the market.
  Let me repeat this. Existing law bans and bars any new chemical or 
new use of an existing chemical from going to the market unless EPA 
signs off on that and it meets a tough safety standard. This bill 
places an arbitrary ban on top of that review. Next-generation heart 
valves, car brakes, solar panels, and military equipment all will be 
stopped from coming to market because of this.

                              {time}  1830

  Section 3 creates an unrealistic mandate on EPA to require all 
manufacturers and processor testing of PFAS. This requirement overlaps 
one that companies send all their existing PFAS information to the EPA 
by 2023.
  Regardless, why even bother doing real science when you have already 
made a decision based on political science? More practically, does EPA 
even have the resources to keep up with such a demand? We could have 
asked them had they been invited to testify on this legislation.
  These are not minor concerns. They sparked opposition, especially in 
the Senate, and are the reason why these items were not included in the 
National Defense Authorization Act. If this process is making good law 
instead of messaging, I would urge my colleagues to keep that in mind 
when voting. We can do better.
  Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden), the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Shimkus for yielding to 
me. He has really poured his heart and soul into this issue and has 
worked very hard on it, is so knowledgeable about it. And he is spot 
on.
  Tragically, there is no science here. The EPA was not allowed to 
testify here. This is a solution that will never become law. It 
completely overreaches.
  You are going to hear from some of our Members, including Dr. 
Bucshon, who is a heart surgeon, about the impact this could have on 
new technologies and devices that get implanted into people's hearts.
  You will hear about automobiles and aircraft that use these very 
specialized chemicals and materials in their manufacturing processes 
that probably have nothing to do with what we are trying to fix here.
  You will hear, and it is true, that this is the first time we are 
going to throw science out the window and make a political decision.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to H.R. 535, the PFAS 
Action Act of 2020, and urge my colleagues, sadly, to do the same.
  We all want a solution to the country's PFAS challenges. And while 
there is more work to be done, I would say, thanks to Mr. Shimkus and 
others, Congress has already acted to provide some funding for reducing 
PFAS in drinking water in rural and economically distressed areas.
  We require the Federal Government to enter into cooperative cleanup 
agreements for Federal facilities with PFAS contamination.
  But we all know more needs to be done.
  Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle have chosen 
to go partisan with H.R. 535, and that is not the way to go, it is not 
the solution.
  This follows two plays Democrats insist on running ad nauseam: 
putting politics over progress and pushing legislation that will never 
become law.
  This was the playbook they ran in December when, sadly, they walked 
away from progress in protecting public health that resulted in two 
major missed opportunities.
  First, we had the chance to mandate that the EPA establish a drinking 
water standard for PFOA and PFOS within 2 years. We had that 
opportunity to get it into law.
  Second, we could have ensured immediate and mandatory cleanup of PFOA 
and PFOS at all Department of Defense facilities. We could have put 
that into law. We were in agreement except for Democrats here, and as a 
result, they wouldn't take yes for an answer, and we lost those 
opportunities.
  But back to H.R. 535. This measure is packed with bad policy and 
unfortunately, or fortunately, is dead on arrival in the Senate.
  Sadly, it delays much needed action to enact science-based solutions 
that protect our constituents. So this hurts Americans, it leaves our 
communities vulnerable, and it did not have to be this way.
  During the Energy and Commerce Committee's consideration of H.R. 535, 
we had a very robust debate on this

[[Page H119]]

bill. Mr. Shimkus offered a package of proposals that had bipartisan 
Senate support, and those all could have become law; in other words, a 
three-quarters agreement of the committees of jurisdiction.
  These proposals were not the way he or I would have crafted them on 
our own, but we were willing to compromise, we were willing to reach 
across the aisle, we were willing to reach across the chamber to the 
Senate, because we wanted to be part of the solution.
  Sadly, we are here today with a bill that, frankly, reaches a new 
low.
  Last month, we had a vehicle to make real, meaningful progress on 
drinking water standards and PFAS cleanup. We could have done more, but 
that progress was stopped and this bill was brought forward.
  So, Mr. Chair, I want to help communities deal with PFAS concerns. I 
want to do it in a scientifically-based way.
  It is important the actions we take are appropriately measured and 
justified and backed up by science. This package, though, is not a 
practical, science-based solution.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader, and I want to thank him for 
prioritizing this PFAS package and making it one of the first things 
that we do in 2020.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Nobody 
has fought harder than Mr. Pallone and Mr. Tonko to make sure that this 
legislation moves forward. And, of course, we worked very hard with the 
Senate to try to have these protections included in the Senate bill. 
Unfortunately, we didn't get there.
  Mr. Chairman, while I am glad that Congress was able to take small 
steps to address the hazards of PFAS contamination through passage of 
the 2020 defense authorization bill last month, that action alone was 
not enough. That is why the House is taking further action this week.
  These contaminants, known as forever chemicals, because they do not 
break down and can remain in the human body for many years, have been 
shown to raise one's risk of deadly cancers, reproductive and immune 
system disorders, and other health problems.
  For decades, we have known that PFAS contamination is a problem.
  According to the EPA, millions of Americans are exposed to unsafe 
levels of PFAS through their drinking water.
  The Trump administration, under its own PFAS Action Plan, promised to 
establish a drinking water standard by the end of last year. Let me 
repeat that. The administration planned to have a standard by the end 
of last year. Unfortunately, that has not been accomplished. It has 
taken neither of the steps that it indicated it would, making this 
legislation very necessary.
  That is why the House is considering PFAS legislation this week 
introduced by Congresswoman Dingell and Congressman Upton, a bipartisan 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate Mrs. Dingell for her continuing 
leadership on this issue. I also want to thank the others who have 
worked on this legislation, including the gentleman from New Hampshire, 
Chris Pappas.
  The package of 12 bills was approved by the Energy and Commerce 
Committee in a bipartisan vote in November. Its provisions will, among 
others, establish a protective safe drinking water standard for PFAS 
contamination based upon science; improved testing of existing PFAS 
chemicals; limit the introduction of new ones; and provide for their 
safe disposal.
  Most importantly, it will begin the process of helping clean up PFAS-
contaminated sites under the Superfund program.
  Critically important, particularly the sponsors are fighting 
contaminated sites in their own areas.
  The Defense Department, which for years has used firefighting foam 
containing PFAS chemicals, has failed to clean up sites across the 
country that have contaminated the drinking water of countless 
Americans.
  Why is that?
  Because the EPA has failed to list these chemicals under the 
Superfund law, notwithstanding their toxic and adverse effects.
  This legislation is a major action aimed at safeguarding public 
health and protecting Americans' access to clean and safe drinking 
water.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Representative Dingell for her leadership 
on this issue; her partner, Fred Upton, the former chairman of the 
committee; Chairman Pallone and subcommittee Chairman Tonko of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, who have both done extraordinary work on 
this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I also want to thank Chairman DeFazio of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his committee's efforts 
to address this issue as well.
  Mr. Chair, I commend the 50 members of the bipartisan House PFAS Task 
Force--50 members, bipartisan--who have been working diligently on this 
issue for years.
  Mr. Chair, I also commend Representative Chris Pappas and Antonio 
Delgado from New York, who have both focused very much on this issue 
and believe this legislation is critical.
  This legislation may be the first comprehensive PFAS bill brought to 
the House floor, but I doubt it will be the last.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to join in voting for this 
bill. I hope that the Senate will take it up without delay and send it 
to the President's desk for approval with the strong bipartisan support 
it deserves.
  I might mention that I have had extensive conversations with a former 
Member of this House, now the Senator from Delaware, Tom Carper, who 
has been very focused on this. And the director of his committee, who 
used to work for me, Mary Frances Repko, who is one of the most 
knowledgeable people I know, she has talked to me about this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank the committee, I want to thank the 
sponsors who have worked so hard on this, and I am glad that we could 
bring this to the floor at the first opportunity.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a cardiothoracic surgeon.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chairman, we all want to keep our communities safe 
from chemicals that can pose a threat to the health of our 
constituents. However, we need to get the solution right and not settle 
on a one-size-fits-all approach.
  As currently written, the PFAS Action Act does not get it right, 
because it would impose Superfund liability under CERCLA on lifesaving 
and other medically beneficial products that have already undergone a 
rigorous approval process conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration to ensure they are safe to use in medicine.
  To designate these lifesaving devices as a hazardous substance is 
inappropriate and may cost American lives.
  That is why I am disappointed that my amendment to exempt FDA-
approved or -cleared products from liability under section 107 of 
CERCLA with respect to PFAS was not made in order.
  As a physician, I have firsthand experience with lifesaving medical 
devices that include PFAS, such as vascular grafts, stent grafts, heart 
patches, catheter tubes, and more.
  In fact, this medical device right here, which you see pictured 
behind me, is used to close what is called an atrial septal defect, a 
procedure used to close a hole in the heart. This product contains 
polytetrafluoroethylene, a PFAS.
  As a surgeon, I used to have to perform open heart surgery, with 
weeks of recovery and rehab for patients after this procedure.
  This device now allows it to be done sometimes as an outpatient.
  This bill, as it stands, would deny Hoosiers and Americans the 
healing power of modern medical devices using PFAS, and instead, lead 
to costly litigation, which would increase the underlying costs of 
healthcare.

  We must be careful before instituting a one-size-fits-all approach to 
PFAS.
  Mr. Chair, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
legislation.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman yield for purposes of colloquy?
  Mr. BUCSHON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Just to clarify: one is that we are exempting airports 
from Superfund liability, but we are not exempting medical devices that 
are FDA approved in infants' bodies?

[[Page H120]]

  

  Mr. BUCSHON. That is my understanding. That is correct.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. And that device that you have is a per- or 
polyfluorinated compound; is that correct?
  Mr. BUCSHON. That is correct.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. And it is FDA approved?
  Mr. BUCSHON. That is correct.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. And if it is toxic, which means it would be defined as 
harmful to a baby, why are we using it in a baby to fix the heart?
  Mr. BUCSHON. Well, because it has not been shown to be toxic. It has 
been approved by the FDA and shown to be safe for patient use. And we 
might not be able to use them in the future if it is declared toxic.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I thank the cardiothoracic surgeon for 
yielding.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I want to respond to something I keep hearing from my 
Republican colleagues, which is the argument that we should abandon 
important proposals because the Senate simply will not accept them.
  We cannot control the Senate, but we have the ability and the 
responsibility to pass strong legislation through this body and work as 
hard as we can to get it enacted.
  I believe in the prerogative and power of the House of 
Representatives to do what is right, and so I can only hope that the 
Senate will follow our example.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
Dingell), a champion on this issue.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding and for 
his leadership, and Chairman Pallone's leadership on all of these 
issues.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 535.
  Exactly 1 year ago, I introduced the PFAS Action Act, and have been 
joined by many of my colleagues in this effort in the last year.

                              {time}  1845

  I promised my constituents that we would take serious steps to 
address that issue, and that is what we are doing today.
  Let us be very clear: PFAS is an urgent public health and 
environmental threat, and the number of contamination sites nationwide 
is growing at an alarming rate, including our military bases.
  PFAS chemicals are everywhere. They are in our nonstick cookware; 
they are in food containers; they are in carpet, clothing, cosmetics, 
and firefighting foams, just to name a few.
  PFAS is persistent. It accumulates in your body, and it is toxic. 
They are manmade, and they are known as a forever chemical. They don't 
break down in the environment; they don't break down in your body; and 
they don't break down in the wildlife.
  Exposure to PFAS, even at low levels, poses significant health risks, 
and we know that now. In a recent review, the CDC identified a number 
of health effects associated with PFAS exposure, including cancer, 
liver damage, decreased fertility, and an increased risk of asthma and 
thyroid disease.
  Experts believe that as many as 99 percent--some people say 97. I 
have an official source that says 99. Who cares what that number is, 
because most Americans at that level have PFAS in their blood, and they 
don't even know it.
  Michigan has been hit hard. It is ground zero for where PFAS has been 
identified. We have 74 sites, but only because, after Flint, we 
learned. We look and try to keep our citizens from being poisoned.
  According to the Environmental Working Group, PFAS has been detected 
in the drinking water of more than 1400 communities across the country; 
and those drinking water systems serve 19 million people in this 
country, including 300 military installations that have been 
identified.
  In my district, PFAS is in the water in the Huron River, and we can't 
eat the fish. I was at a townhall meeting and a man got up--he was 
older--and said to me: I used to eat that fish. I relied on it. When 
will I be able to eat it again?
  I didn't want to say this to him, but the fact of the matter is 
probably not in his lifetime.
  Most of these sites are not being cleaned up. And the number of sites 
is expected to grow across the country as more States do the testing 
they need to do to protect their citizens, to find PFAS.
  But the most troubling thing is that the manufacturing companies know 
the danger of PFAS and even tracked it in the blood of their employees, 
while the EPA has completely abandoned its responsibility to act 
swiftly and comprehensively.
  And our military is saying they don't have to clean it up. Why? 
Because it is not listed under CERCLA and because they are not required 
to do so.
  Here is the reality. We are not cleaning up the contamination. We 
don't even have a protective drinking water standard.
  And you talk about science, Governor Rick Snyder, a Republican, 
appointed a scientific community that said that the guideline--not a 
standard--isn't stringent enough to protect human life.
  Now, EPA keeps coming and testifying before our committee, and they 
say they are going to do it soon, but I sure don't see them doing it.
  Do you all realize that exposures to contaminated water, air, and 
soil that include PFAS and toxins kill more people than smoking, 
hunger, war, natural disaster, AIDS, and malaria together?
  Did the Flint water crisis not teach us in this Congress and the 
country something?
  Mr. Chair, I thank all of my colleagues who have worked on this 
issue.
  When you know the facts, I don't understand how anybody could let 
American people be poisoned, and it is time for us to act.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute to respond.
  Mr. Chair, if all this whole class of 7,866 chemicals is so 
dangerous, why does FDA allow us to implant them in the hearts of 
infant children?
  If this is so dangerous--there may be a couple that are bad, we are 
not disputing that, but the entire class?
  If it is so bad, why does the FDA say it is okay for food packaging?
  If it is so bad, why didn't my friends in the Obama administration, 
in that EPA ban it? Because they want to do the scientific analysis.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 535, the 
PFAS Action Act, sponsored by Congresswoman Dingell and Congressman 
Upton.
  The EPA has acknowledged that PFAS chemical exposure can lead to 
adverse health effects for human beings, but it has been very slow to 
do anything about it.
  PFAS chemicals present a clear and present danger to communities all 
over the United States. They are linked to cancer, can cause birth 
defects, disrupt thyroid hormones, and affect the immune system.
  Beyond the military, where it is all over our bases, the chemicals 
can be found in food packaging, commercial household products, our 
workplaces, and our drinking water; and certain PFAS chemicals are so 
dangerous that they are no longer manufactured in the United States.
  Mr. Chair, we need to pass this bill, as we have done once before.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, might I inquire of the time that is remaining 
for our side.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 18 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Illinois has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TONKO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Ruiz.)
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chair, there was an excellent question posed by a 
nonphysician as to why it would be safe for a medical device to exist 
within the baby and approved by the FDA, and I think it is important to 
understand the physiology of what is the pathophysiology of these 
chemicals in the human body.

  The danger with these chemicals is when they actually cross either 
the air-blood barrier or are deposited into tissue, whether they are 
ingested, inhaled in a specific form, that then gets deposited and 
accumulates over time.
  When they are packaged in a specific device, they don't necessarily 
start to get absorbed or within a certain amount to prevent certain 
illnesses. But when you break them down into

[[Page H121]]

chemical reactions to actually get deposited, then that is when you 
come up with illnesses.
  That is why it is so dangerous, because in terms of the tissue, in 
terms of the route of ingestion, in terms of the different forms of the 
way it is accumulated, it can have dire effects.
  Ninety-seven percent of Americans have or have had harmful PFAS 
chemicals in their bloodstream. They are known as forever chemicals 
because, once consumed, they take years and years and years to leave 
your body.
  We eat these chemicals when our foods are stored in PFAS-containing 
packages. And, like I said, there is some leakage there. We drink them 
when they accumulate in our drinking water in their most basic form. 
And PFAS can also be passed along during pregnancy and breastfeeding 
when they are in their smallest form as well.
  Even small levels of exposure to PFAS have been shown to harm 
people's immune systems.
  Again, this is through the medical-scientific literature. The 
medical-scientific literature has shown that small levels of exposure 
to PFAS have shown harm to people's immune systems, increase their risk 
of certain types of cancer, and affect thyroid function.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TONKO. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RUIZ. Even small levels of PFAS can be harmful to the public's 
health.
  The PFAS Action Act of 2019 will help address this public health 
issue by establishing a maximum contaminant level for PFAS in drinking 
water, provide funds to help communities remove PFAS from their 
drinking water, and require continuing monitoring of PFAS. It also 
provides millions specifically for disadvantaged communities harmed by 
PFAS-affected water systems.
  Having clean water to drink is a common good for everyone, not a 
privilege for the few.
  I urge everybody to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, on my time, I have a question for the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ruiz). I have great respect for the doctor and his 
medical knowledge--just two questions.
  One, if the medical device has been made, right, and then there is a 
defect, so they throw it away, and if we have labeled that as a toxic 
chemical, then that chemical in the municipal waste now becomes a 
Superfund site; right?
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RUIZ. I do not know the answer.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. The answer is, under current law, H.R. 535, not amended, 
the answer is yes.
  So why would they make it?
  Mr. RUIZ. What I can answer is that PFAS can be harmful to one's 
health even though they may have a utility for a medical device.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. No, I understand the physiology. I got that. I am just 
telling you the problem with this bill.
  But the question is, the device, labeled as toxic, thrown in a 
municipal waste field would then become a Superfund site under current 
law.
  And then I guess the other question I would ask the doctor is: There 
are 7,866 permutations of per- and polyfluorinated compounds. I would 
ask the doctor, which one is he referring to?
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Soto).
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, our constituents across America would be 
surprised to know that so many of these districts have been poisoned by 
a chemical they never even heard of, the PFOS and PFAS chemicals. But 
they would be even more shocked to know that the very cookware that 
they cook their meals to serve to their little kids and to their 
families contain that very poison. So why wouldn't we want to let them 
know, give them a heads-up?
  And then, turning to Florida, we had a cancer cluster in Ocala, 
Florida, that hurt countless firefighters. If we are not here to 
protect little kids and firefighters, why are we here?
  We don't need to wait for the Senate to tell us whether we can act or 
not. We need to act now, and that is why I am supporting this bill.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, H.R. 535 lists only PFOA and PFOS under 
Superfund and leaves decisions for all other PFAS to EPA. EPA has 
already committed to listing PFOA and PFOS under Superfund and has been 
working on the listing since 2018. The bill will speed up that listing, 
so that cleanup of existing contamination starts sooner, but does not 
change how Superfund will apply.
  The two PFAS that will be listed under Superfund by this bill have 
already been phased out by industry under a voluntary EPA partnership 
more than a decade ago.

                              {time}  1900

  They are not being made in this country anymore. So no one producing 
airplane door seals or heart stents or any other product is using the 
chemicals listed under the bill. The FDA is not approving heart stents 
made of these chemicals.
  Most of those products are actually made from PTFE, better known as 
Teflon. The companies who make and use PTFE believe it is not 
hazardous. If that is true, the testing regime in this bill will show 
it to be true. And if it is true, the EPA will not list it under 
Superfund.
  The bill leaves the listing decision for PTFE and all other PFAS 
currently produced in this country to EPA. It gives the EPA 5 years to 
evaluate those chemicals and supplies them with the needed science.
  This is a reasonable approach that will not regulate PFAS chemicals 
that are found to be nonhazardous and will take no immediate action on 
PFAS chemicals still being made.
  I also want to note that FDA review and CERCLA listing are not 
inconsistent. FDA review looks at whether a product is safe and 
effective for specific uses. CERCLA focuses on whether a chemical is 
hazardous when released into the environment.
  Many items that have important, even lifesaving uses, are not safe 
when dumped into the environment. And to be clear, the FDA is not 
recommending that healthy individuals implant PFAS into their bodies. 
The FDA is making a careful decision that someone in need of a heart 
stent is served by this device more than they are harmed.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Dean).
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Tonko for yielding.
  Article I, section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, States: ``The 
people have a right to clean air, to pure water.''
  Similar in spirit, the Environmental Protection Agency's website 
proclaims that: ``The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the 
environment.''
  Unfortunately, EPA has taken only halting steps to deal with our PFAS 
water contamination challenge, despite its ongoing harm to human 
health. EPA's website describes those harms: ``low infant birth 
weights, effects on the immune system, cancer . . . and thyroid hormone 
disruption.''
  I rise in support of H.R. 535 which will require EPA to mandate 
cleanup of contaminated sites, set air emission limits, and limit new 
PFAS chemicals in the marketplace;
  Identify health risks by requiring comprehensive health testing, 
reporting and monitoring;
  Require a national PFAS drinking water standard that creates clarity 
for States and municipalities;
  Holds polluters accountable.
  I am pleased to have worked on this public health issue and to see 
that part of my bill, H.R. 2600, included, which will require EPA to 
develop needed rules for safe PFAS disposal.
  I rise in support of this bill.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, just a couple of points. Obviously, we have numerous 
problems with all of the sections of this bill.
  The one that is also troubling is the 5-year ban, because under TSCA, 
which we worked on, passed in a bipartisan manner, no new chemicals can 
come to the market unless it is safe.
  So what this bill does, is already label a per- or polyfluorinated 
compound that could be very lifesaving and helpful, it puts a scarlet 
letter on them beforehand and it doesn't allow it. Chemistry is the 
future, cleaner, greener, and it is the future for an EV world, super 
computing, you name it.

[[Page H122]]

  But we are banning per- and polyfluorinated compounds. Now remember, 
there are 7,866 different permutations of this. So where we accept the 
premise that there may be some that are terrible, we are not accepting 
the premise that they are all bad, and that is what this bill does.
  I also want to highlight that Superfund designation is not salvation. 
Eielson Air Force base in Fairbanks, Alaska, went on the Superfund site 
November 21, 1989. It is still there after 30 years. So just think 
about the community now that has been stigmatized under a Superfund 
designation, and they are not going to be able to redevelop, retrain, 
rebuild, and grow the economy.
  I have a whole list of these things from 30 years, 32 years, 30, 35 
years ago. Most of us have dealt with Superfund sites in our district. 
I have. They are no fun and they are not helpful, and it takes forever.
  Talking about forever chemicals, we are talking about forever 
Superfund sites, and that is what you are signing up for in this 
debate.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, to the gentleman from New York, I would 
like to enter into a colloquy regarding creosote contamination in the 
18th Congressional District.
  I certainly rise to support enthusiastically H.R. 535. For decades 
the residents of the Fifth Ward and surrounding areas, residential 
areas in Houston, which is located on the northern side of my district, 
have long suspected that creosote was making them sick. They were 
exposed to creosote through soil and water contamination through a 
railroad yard.
  Last April, during a community meeting I hosted for residents on the 
topic of creosote contamination, I requested a cancer study from the 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality after person after person 
spoke about cancer and their relative dying.
  The study found that three adult respiratory-system-related cancers 
occurred in that Fifth Ward and surrounding areas, including Kashmere 
Gardens. The cancers included, lung and bronchus, esophagus, and 
larynx. Toxic substances, such as creosote, should not be in common use 
where human activity is present, and it should not take decades for 
hazardous environmental concerns expressed by citizens to get 
addressed.

  Mr. TONKA. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield to the gentleman from New York for the 
purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, creosote is listed as a hazardous substance 
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act, CERCLA, for the purpose of Superfund cleanup sites for 
the assignments of liability.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an 
additional 1 minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. TONKO. The mechanisms for reporting on potential toxicants should 
allow citizens ready access to information on what they can do to alert 
authorities to environmental threats.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. The communities like the Fifth Ward and surrounding 
areas in Houston can be invaluable to assisting agencies in identifying 
ways to improve on the information provided to the general public--they 
live it every day. These are life or death issues--on the means and 
methods available to citizens to report environmental concerns and how 
these products are used amongst the community for products that are 
very needed in the community, and have those concerns adequately 
addressed.
  Mr. TONKO. The public is vital to the work of environmental 
protection, and I look forward to learning more about the residents of 
the Fifth Ward and surrounding communities, and the gentlewoman's 
efforts to address creosote contamination. And I thank the gentlewoman 
for bringing this to the attention of the committee and Members of 
Congress.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much, and as I 
leave the floor, just want to take note of the contamination in the 
State of Texas and this is what we are fighting.
  Mr. Chair, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland 
Security, I rise in strong support of H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 
2019, which will regulate in a comprehensive fashion Per- and poly- 
fluoroalkyl substances (referred to as PFAS).
  I support the legislation because it also protects public health by 
containing provisions to clean up contaminated sites.
  I have long held concerns regarding environmental justice issues that 
impact urban and rural communities who disproportionately face problems 
associated with contaminated water, soil, and air pollution.
  My work to protect residents of the 18th Congressional District from 
harms caused by contaminants over the last year include: creosote 
ground water contamination and the opposition of permitting of a cement 
manufacturing facility near residential spaces in Fifth Ward Houston 
and Acres Homes respectively.
  Through a series of major community meetings on environmental hazards 
I held last year I can attest that people are literally fighting for 
their lives and the lives of their children because of disparate 
conditions regarding managing containment and cleanup of an existing 
ground water creosote contamination site and the threat of cement dust 
contamination of a residential area if a State issued permit be allowed 
to stand.
  Concerns about the health impact of creosote and other harms to human 
health have existed in Acres Homes and 5th Ward Houston for decades.
  Because of recent actions on the part of the responsible party for 
containing the effects of creosote contamination of ground water, I 
called a community meeting including all relevant entities in April of 
2019.
  As an action item from that meeting I requested, that the Texas 
Commission on Environmental Quality arrange a cancer cluster study of 
the 5th Ward area of Houston that would be conducted by the Texas 
Department of State Health Services (DSHS).
  The DSHS analyzed census tracts in Houston to determine the 
incidences of cancer.
  The analysis examined cancers--specifically those associated with 
adults.
  The study analyzed a half-dozen types of adults referencing cancers 
in the Texas Cancer Registry.
  It concluded that ``the numbers of esophagus, lung and bronchus and 
larynx cancers were statistically significantly greater than is 
expected based on cancer rates in Texas.''
  The DSHS's work was incomplete--we do need more data.
   This report, however, confirmed the fears of constituents in my 
district, as expressed at my April town hall meeting.
  According to the report, incidences of cancer outside of normal 
probabilities has occurred in 5th Ward Houston.
  Specifically, the DSHS analyzed the Texas Cancer Registry available 
from 2000 to 2016, as it relates to the affected areas, in which 
``[l]ung, bronchus esophagus, and larynx cancers were statistically 
significantly greater than expected.''
  The report also found that the types of cancers which were identified 
in the study are consistent with those present in arsenic, which 
comprises creosote.
  Given the findings of the DSHS report, and the impact this has on the 
health and wellbeing on my constituents in Kashmere Gardens, I will be 
working to address the need to place energy and effort to address 
community environmental concerns more effectively.
  And there have been critical, tangible health consequences to the 
emergence of these cancer clusters for decades that went 
uninvestigated.
  In my April community meeting and in December during a media event 
and tour, I heard stories that were stark in their nature, compelling 
and tragic on the incidence of illness and cancer that has plagued 
residents of 5th Ward.
  Speaker after speaker at these community meetings spoke of the 
existence of the cancer, either in themselves or in their relatives.
  It was startling.
  One participant spoke of having a vegetable garden and concerns about 
whether it was safe to eat the food grown.
  Another resident spoke of a recent diagnosis of cancer and the number 
of neighbors and family members who had contracted cancers over the 
years.
  The open over 20 feet deep creosote dipping pit that abutted back 
yards of residents for decades was real.
  The runoff from rain storms tainted with creosote that filled ditches 
with oily black and brown smelly residue happened.
  The persistent smell of creosote near where they lived was constant.
  A few weeks ago, I walked Lavender and Lily streets and engaged with 
residents who had thyroid cancer or lung cancer who shared

[[Page H123]]

their stories with me in hopes that something can be done.
  I remain concerned about the existence of cancer clusters in 
Houston's Fifth Ward.
  The safety and well-being of the Kashmere Gardens Community and 
surrounding areas are my overriding concern.
  My advocacy on this issue and on behalf of those identified in the 
city is longstanding and unwavering, and I will not relent until the 
community and its citizens have answers about the impact creosote has 
in the lives and health of my constituents.
  This is why I am in strong support of H.R. 535.
  This legislation addresses PFAS chemicals, which are an urgent public 
health threat because PFAS are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, 
and communities across the country are discovering PFAS contamination 
in their air, land, and water.
  Mr. Chair, PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals defined by the 
presence of fluorinated carbon atom, the strongest carbon bond 
possible.
  Because of this bond, these chemicals are extremely persistent in the 
environment and are known to bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife, 
which is why they are called ``forever chemicals.''
  PFAS have long been linked with adverse health effects including 
cancer, immune system effects, infertility, impaired child development, 
high cholesterol, and thyroid disease.
  Contamination has been found across the country, much of it around 
industrial facilities and Department of Defense installations.
  According to monitoring by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
millions of Americans are exposed to unsafe levels of PFAS through 
their drinking water.
  Mr. Chair, it is urgent that this Congress enact this legislation 
because the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration and industry 
have failed to address known threats presented by PFAS chemicals.
  EPA and industry have known about the risks from PFAS chemicals for 
decades but failed to act to prevent the spread of this contamination.
  Industry studies showing adverse health effects as early as 1950 have 
now been made public.
  EPA has recognized the risk of these chemicals since at least 1995, 
when the agency amended its polymer exemption to exclude new PFAS 
chemicals.
  Despite that knowledge, EPA took no action on PFOA and PFOS until 
2006, and then relied on a voluntary industry phase out instead of 
using the regulatory tools available.
  EPA is continuing to allow new PFAS onto the market, some without any 
review under ``low volume exemptions'' to the Toxic Substances Control 
Act.
  Last year, EPA issued a ``PFAS Action Plan'' that did not take needed 
action to address cleanup of contaminated sites, set limits on PFAS in 
drinking water, or even require reporting of PFAS releases.
  In fact, the only commitments made in the action plan were to make 
some determinations by the end of 2019--commitments that were not met.
  H.R. 535 will provide the protections impacted communities need 
quickly and for the long term.
  The PFAS Action Act of 2019 would require EPA to use tools under 
several environmental statutes to:
  1. Stem the flow of PFAS contamination into the environment by 
requiring cleanup of sites contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, setting air 
emission limits, prohibiting unsafe incineration of PFAS, and limiting 
the introduction of new PFAS chemicals into commerce;
  2. Identify health risks by requiring comprehensive health testing 
for all PFAS, reporting of PFAS releases, and monitoring for PFAS in 
drinking water;
  3. Limit human exposure to PFAS by requiring a drinking water 
standard for PFAS that protects public health, including the health of 
vulnerable subpopulations like pregnant women, infants, and children, 
and holding polluters accountable.
  In addition, H.R. 535 provides grants to impacted water systems, 
creates a voluntary label for cookware that is PFAS free, and provides 
guidance for first responders to limit their exposures.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 535 addresses a critical threat to the public health 
and safety and that is why I support and urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire again about time remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Illinois has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chair, I would like to commend the sponsor of this 
bill, my friend from Michigan, Congresswoman Dingell. She is a true 
champion of clean air and water.
  Families across my district are rightfully concerned about a chemical 
legacy that they and their children will bear unless we pass this bill. 
Sampling of wells is ongoing in the community of Devens, as well as its 
neighbor, the town of Ayer.
  PFAS contamination was likely due, at least in part, to the 
firefighting foam used at the Fort Devens Army base over the past 
century. The town of Hudson has had to contend with its own PFAS 
issues, such as in its Cranberry Bog well.
  The EPA has failed in its duty of care to the American people, so I 
urge my colleagues to protect public health and to pass H.R. 535, the 
PFAS Action Act. Clean drinking water is something to which everyone in 
this Nation is entitled.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in full, enthusiastic support for this legislation which is 
long overdue. For decades, chemical corporations like 3M and DuPont 
knowingly manufactured products containing forever-toxic chemicals 
known as PFAS.
  Our Federal Government has confirmed that PFAS can adversely affect 
growth and learning in children, lower a women's chance of getting 
pregnant, increase cholesterol, hinder the immune system, interfere 
with hormone regulation, and even increase the risk of cancer.
  As a cancer survivor myself, and as chairwoman of the Appropriations 
Committee Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee, I find it unconscionable that I have veterans coming to 
me to complain that their families are dying due to the Department of 
Defense's decades-long use of these chemicals.
  As a member of the Oversight and Reform Committee, I have told 3M and 
DuPont to their faces that I don't know how they sleep at night. They 
poisoned our water and contaminated the bloodstream of millions of 
people all for profit.
  It is past time that the Federal Government step up and do something 
about it, and we do that here today. I commend Congresswoman Dingell 
for her work and so many of my colleagues who have fought so far and so 
long, including the chairman.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Mrs. Fletcher).
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 535, the PFAS 
Action Act, a comprehensive bill to address PFAS contamination across 
the country. And I thank my colleagues for their commitment to bringing 
this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, I am glad that one of the bills I filed in this Congress, 
H.R. 2638, has now been included in this legislation. It directs the 
Environmental Protection Agency to issue guidance on minimizing the use 
of firefighting foam and other equipment that contains PFAS chemicals 
by firefighters and first responders.
  Its purpose is simply to minimize the risk for our firefighters and 
first responders as well as for our environment. We know that these 
chemicals are dangerous for humans who have been exposed to them, and 
we know they are dangerous for our environment.
  Unfortunately, we have seen the impacts in our community as recently 
as last year. During the ITC plant fire in Deer Park, Texas, in March 
2019, firefighters used more than 130,000 gallons of foam to extinguish 
the massive flames in that fire. Not long after, high levels of PFAS 
chemicals were found in the water in the Houston Ship Channel and lower 
levels were found farther downstream, according to the Galveston Bay 
Foundation.
  Our first responders risk their lives every day to protect our 
communities. We must do everything we can to protect theirs.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H124]]

  I thank the House leadership for bringing forward this package today. 
I want to explain why it is critical that Members support this bill.
  The health and the safety of communities across our great country are 
compromised by these dangerous chemicals. For their sake, let's not 
pretend that nibbling at the edges with the latest NDAA is enough to 
declare victory.
  I have visited the communities and met the families who are dealing 
with the fallout from PFAS exposure and environmental contamination. 
They elected us to put their needs first, and they need more than half 
measures.
  I appreciate my Republican colleagues' willingness to work on cleanup 
of Federal facilities, but that simply is not enough. I cannot in good 
conscience go home this weekend and tell the people of Rensselaer 
County: ``We are cleaning up DOD sites, but we have no plan for the 
polluted industrial sites in Hoosick Falls, or any others like it 
around the country.''
  It just isn't right. We need to take action under Superfund and hold 
PFAS polluters responsible, regardless of whether they are public or 
private.
  The bill also requires any national drinking water standard to, at a 
minimum, ensure vulnerable groups, including pregnant women, infants, 
and children, are protected.
  I won't tolerate EPA adopting an unsafe standard, and I do hope 
Members with impacted communities won't either.
  The bill includes other critical provisions to reduce PFAS exposure, 
empower consumers, and expedite cleanups. We have waited too long 
already for the administration to act. I fear we will keep waiting, or 
worse, deal with the consequences of unprotective actions.
  Until we enact these provisions, we cannot say that Congress has done 
its job.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As we went through the TSCA debate, one thing I learned was exposure 
over time of the hazard equals the risk.

                              {time}  1915

  Sometimes, we conflate a bad chemical as risk unless you can protect 
it from exposure. That is why I have been focusing on the 7,866 
chemicals. That is why I am talking about the PFAS that might be in a 
hockey puck but not in the bloodstream.
  But this bill says that everything is going to be labeled as a 
hazardous waste and followed up on Superfund. The contrary argument is: 
Great, put it in the Superfund. When will that get cleaned up?
  If it is in Ellison Air Force Base, Alaska, 30 years, and it is still 
not cleaned up. Williams Air Force Base, Chandler, Arizona, 30 years, 
and it is still not cleaned up. Castle Air Force Base, Merced, 
California, 32 years, and it is still not cleaned up. Dover Air Force 
Base, 30 years, and it is still not cleaned up. Central Landfill in 
Johnston, Rhode Island, 33 years, and it is still not cleaned up. Walsh 
Landfill, Honey Brook Township, Pennsylvania, Superfund site, 35 years, 
and it is still not cleaned up. Colbert, what we have is 35 years of 
litigation.
  I like that red map that they are touting out here on this bill. That 
red map indicates trial lawyer action in all those States because most 
of the Superfund money goes to litigation.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I also want to highlight what we have 
done. I think some people have alluded to it, that nothing was done, 
but a lot was done in the National Defense Authorization Act. A little 
bit more was done in the end-of-year spending bill. This Safe Drinking 
Water Act provision could have been in, and we all know it. That could 
have been in law today. But it wasn't, as leverage for this bill that 
we are talking about today.
  In the NDAA, we require EPA to mandate that drinking water systems 
monitor for unregulated PFAS. That is law. In the NDAA, it is now law 
that we provide grants to communities to address emerging contaminants 
in drinking water, including PFAS.
  Currently, in law, we require new reporting for PFAS under the Toxics 
Release Inventory program. Currently, under law, it is required that 
manufacturers and processors of PFAS submit health and safety 
information. It is now law.
  Current law restricts new uses of long-chain PFAS. Now, what do I 
mean by long chain? That is when there are 7,866 different per- and 
polyfluorinated compounds. You have long-chain ones, and you have 
short-chain ones. We are banning the long chain, and again, we need 
scientific research, but this bans them all, whether or not they are 
safe.
  EPA law now is guidance for appropriate destruction. Now currently 
under law, it requires the Federal Government to work expeditiously 
with States to enter in a binding cooperative agreement concerning 
cleanup.
  Mr. Chairman, that is in respect to your State of Michigan. Michigan 
established its standard. The Department of Defense was hiding behind 
the fact that it couldn't negotiate. You guys were successful. Former 
Chairman Upton was part of that fight. I applaud the State of Michigan 
for having that done, and now that is current law.
  In the appropriations bill, which provided $2 billion for the Clean 
Water and Drinking State Revolving Fund, $20 million will go to State-
level PFOS cleanup.
  So as we hear this debate and as we go to the amendments, we are 
going to hear doom and gloom and that we are negligent, that EPA is not 
doing anything, and that we are terrible people. In fact, at the end of 
last year, great strides were made, in a bipartisan manner. I applaud 
the NDAA. I applaud the end-of-year spending bill. And this, too, shall 
end.
  I do want to highlight the fact that to ban 7,866 forms of per- and 
polyfluorinated compounds without doing science, that has never been 
done in the history of this Chamber and this body. It is more political 
science versus science.
  We get it. We will move through this process. We will have our votes, 
and then this will be a fight for the next Congress because the Senate 
has said it is not going to support this bill. It is not going to bring 
it up. The President has already issued a veto threat.
  It is a good exercise. I get to practice speaking on the floor with 
my friends in debate, which I look forward to as we bring up the 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chair, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 
535--The PFAS Action Act. This bill is a big step towards cleaner water 
for all Americans. It designates PFOA and PFOS as hazardous; these are 
two of the most prevalent substances that make up the group of 
substances known as PFAS. These `forever' chemicals are known to pose 
serious health concerns that have affected many of my constituents 
throughout Bucks County along with Americans across our country. 99 
percent of people have traces of PFAS in their blood.
  One of my top PFAS priorities has been getting a federal Maximum 
Contaminant Level (MCL) for PFAS chemicals in our water. Most states do 
not have an MCL and ones that do, are not uniform. State residence 
should not be the defining factor for an American to have safe drinking 
water, having one universal MCL for PFOA and PFOS in the U.S. helps to 
solve this problem.
  Currently there is no limit on how much PFAS pollution is in our 
water and air. This bill gives EPA the power to begin regulating this 
lethal pollution. It will jumpstart the cleanup effort and hold PFAS 
polluters accountable. It will require polluting companies to submit 
information to EPA, so that the Agency can more fully evaluate the 
environmental and health effects of these toxins.
  Hundreds of PFAS chemicals are used in commercial goods and The PFAS 
Action Act will put in place a labeling system so that PFAS-free 
products can be easily identified by consumers.
  I have seen firsthand the devastating health effects that PFAS 
substances cause in my community. The Department of Defense (DOD) used 
PFAS chemicals in its firefighting foam for decades at the Willow Grove 
base that contaminated the water and soil in Warminster, PA. Last month 
I supported a new Defense bill that became law which ends the practice 
of using that specific kind of firefighting foam by 2024. This bill 
goes further and will make people safer and less likely to consume 
these toxins.
  Every American deserves access to clean drinking water and clean air. 
Most of us think only clean water comes out of our faucets

[[Page H125]]

when we turn them on, unfortunately, this is a misconception. Until 
this bill is signed into law and is fully implemented, we cannot trust 
that our water is not contaminated with these toxic substances.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill. A vote 
for this bill means that you care about safe drinking water for your 
constituents. EPA has promised to address PFAS, and this bill will 
ensure that they make substantial progress by setting firm deadlines.
  I would like to thank Congresswoman Dingell, Congressman Upton along 
with Congressman Kildee, who co-chairs the Bipartisan PFAS Taskforce 
with me, for their work in leading this important bill.
  I also want to thank Joanne Stanton and Hope Grosse of the Buxmont 
Coalition for Clean Water along with many of the townships and 
municipalities throughout my district, they have fought for years for 
meaningful action to be taken on this issue, and while this bill is by 
no measure the finish line, it is a major milestone.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 House 
Report 116-366, shall be considered as adopted.
  The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for 
the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 535

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``PFAS 
     Action Act of 2019''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Designation as hazardous substances.
Sec. 3. Testing of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Sec. 4. Manufacturing and processing notices for perfluoroalkyl and 
              polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Sec. 5. National primary drinking water regulations for PFAS.
Sec. 6. Enforcement.
Sec. 7. Establishment of PFAS infrastructure grant program.
Sec. 8. Listing of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances as 
              hazardous air pollutants.
Sec. 9. Prohibition on unsafe waste incineration of PFAS.
Sec. 10. Label for PFAS-free products.
Sec. 11. Guidance on minimizing the use of firefighting foam and other 
              related equipment containing any PFAS.

     SEC. 2. DESIGNATION AS HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES.

       (a) Designation.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall designate perfluorooctanoic acid and 
     its salts, and perfluoroactanesulfonic acid and its salts, as 
     hazardous substances under section 102(a) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9602(a)).
       (b) Deadline for Additional Determinations.--Not later than 
     5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     determine whether to designate all perfluoroalkyl and 
     polyfluoroalkyl substances, other than those perfluoroalkyl 
     and polyfluoroalkyl substances designated pursuant to 
     subsection (a), as hazardous substances under section 102(a) 
     of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
     and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9602(a)) individually or 
     in groups.
       (c) Airport Sponsors.--
       (1) In general.--No sponsor, including a sponsor of the 
     civilian portion of a joint-use airport or a shared-use 
     airport (as such terms are defined in section 139.5 of title 
     14, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)), 
     shall be liable under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601 et seq.) for the costs of responding to, or damages 
     resulting from, a release to the environment of a 
     perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance designated as a 
     hazardous substance under section 102(a) of such Act that 
     resulted from the use of aqueous film forming foam agent, if 
     such use was--
       (A) required by the Federal Aviation Administration for 
     compliance with part 139 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations; and
       (B) carried out in accordance with Federal Aviation 
     Administration standards and guidance on the use of such 
     substance.
       (2) Sponsor defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``sponsor'' has the meaning given such term in section 47102 
     of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. TESTING OF PERFLUOROALKYL AND POLYFLUOROALKYL 
                   SUBSTANCES.

       (a) Testing Requirements.--Section 4(a) of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2603(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances rule.--
       ``(A) Rule.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (3), 
     the Administrator shall, by rule, require that comprehensive 
     toxicity testing be conducted on all chemical substances that 
     are perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances.
       ``(B) Requirements.--In issuing a rule under subparagraph 
     (A), the Administrator--
       ``(i) may establish categories of perfluoroalkyl and 
     polyfluoroalkyl substances based on hazard characteristics or 
     chemical properties;
       ``(ii) shall require the development of information 
     relating to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances 
     that the Administrator determines is likely to be useful in 
     evaluating the hazard and risk posed by such substances in 
     land, air, and water (including drinking water), as well as 
     in products; and
       ``(iii) may allow for varied or tiered testing requirements 
     based on hazard characteristics or chemical properties of 
     perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or categories 
     of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
       ``(C) Deadlines.--The Administrator shall issue--
       ``(i) a proposed rule under subparagraph (A) not later than 
     6 months after the date of enactment of this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) a final rule under subparagraph (A) not later than 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
       (b) Persons Subject to Rule.--Section 4(b)(3) of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2603(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``subparagraph (B) or 
     (C)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B), (C), or (D)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) A rule under subsection (a)(5) shall require the 
     development of information by any person who manufactures or 
     processes, or intends to manufacture or process, a chemical 
     substance that is a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl 
     substance.''.
       (c) Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.--Section 
     4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2603) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.--
       ``(1) Testing requirement rule.--
       ``(A) Protocols and methodologies.--In determining the 
     protocols and methodologies to be included pursuant to 
     subsection (b)(1) in a rule under subsection (a)(5), the 
     Administrator shall allow for protocols and methodologies 
     that test chemical substances that are perfluoroalkyl and 
     polyfluoroalkyl substances as a class.
       ``(B) Period.--In determining the period to be included 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(1) in a rule under subsection 
     (a)(5), the Administrator shall ensure that the period is as 
     short as possible while allowing for completion of the 
     required testing.
       ``(2) Exemptions.--In carrying out subsection (c) with 
     respect to a chemical substance that is a perfluoroalkyl or 
     polyfluoroalkyl substance, the Administrator--
       ``(A) may only determine under subsection (c)(2) that 
     information would be duplicative if the chemical substance 
     with respect to which the application for exemption is 
     submitted is in the same category, as established under 
     subsection (a)(5)(B)(i), as a chemical substance for which 
     information has been submitted to the Administrator in 
     accordance with a rule, order, or consent agreement under 
     subsection (a) or for which information is being developed 
     pursuant to such a rule, order, or consent agreement; and
       ``(B) shall publish a list of all such chemical substances 
     for which an exemption under subsection (c) is granted.''.

     SEC. 4. MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING NOTICES FOR 
                   PERFLUOROALKYL AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES.

       Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2604) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (h), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) This subsection does not apply to any chemical 
     substance that is a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl 
     substance.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.--
       ``(1) Determination.--For a period of 5 years beginning on 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, any chemical 
     substance that is a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl 
     substance for which a notice is submitted under subsection 
     (a) shall be deemed to have been determined by the 
     Administrator to present an unreasonable risk of injury to 
     health or the environment under paragraph (3)(A) of such 
     subsection.
       ``(2) Order.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(3)(A), for a 
     chemical substance described in paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall issue an order under 
     subsection (f)(3) to prohibit the manufacture, processing, 
     and distribution in commerce of such chemical substance.''.

     SEC. 5. 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--

[[Page H126]]

       ``(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 (G)(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 protection.--The national primary drinking 
     water regulation promulgated under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     protective of the health of subpopulations at greater risk, 
     as described in section 1458.
       ``(F) 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.
       ``(G) 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 6 months.
       ``(H) Health advisory.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the 
     Administrator shall publish a health advisory under paragraph 
     (1)(F) for a 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.''.

     SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not 
     impose financial penalties for the violation of a national 
     primary drinking water regulation (as defined in section 1401 
     of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f)) with respect 
     to a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of 
     perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances for which a 
     national primary drinking water regulation has been 
     promulgated under section 1412(b)(16) of the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act earlier than the date that is 5 years after the 
     date on which the Administrator promulgates the national 
     primary drinking water regulation.

     SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF PFAS INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT PROGRAM.

       Part E of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 1459E. ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS AFFECTED 
                   BY PFAS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall 
     establish a program to award grants to affected community 
     water systems to pay for capital costs associated with the 
     implementation of eligible treatment technologies.
       ``(b) Applications.--
       ``(1) Guidance.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator shall publish 
     guidance describing the form and timing for community water 
     systems to apply for grants under this section.
       ``(2) Required information.--The Administrator shall 
     require a community water system applying for a grant under 
     this section to submit--
       ``(A) information showing the presence of PFAS in water of 
     the community water system; and
       ``(B) a certification that the treatment technology in use 
     by the community water system at the time of application is 
     not sufficient to remove all detectable amounts of PFAS.
       ``(c) List of Eligible Treatment Technologies.--Not later 
     than 150 days after the date of enactment of this section, 
     and every two years thereafter, the Administrator shall 
     publish a list of treatment technologies that the 
     Administrator determines are effective at removing all 
     detectable amounts of PFAS from drinking water.
       ``(d) Priority for Funding.--In awarding grants under this 
     section, the Administrator shall prioritize affected 
     community water systems that--
       ``(1) serve a disadvantaged community;
       ``(2) will provide at least a 10-percent cost share for the 
     cost of implementing an eligible treatment technology; or
       ``(3) demonstrate the capacity to maintain the eligible 
     treatment technology to be implemented using the grant.
       ``(e) No Increased bonding Authority.--Amounts awarded to 
     affected community water systems under this section may not 
     be used as a source of payment of, or security for (directly 
     or indirectly), in whole or in part, any obligation the 
     interest on which is exempt from the tax imposed under 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section not more than 
     $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2021.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Affected community water system.--The term `affected 
     community water system' means a community water system that 
     is affected by the presence of PFAS in the water in the 
     community water system.
       ``(2) Disadvantaged community.--The term `disadvantaged 
     community' has the meaning given that term in section 1452.
       ``(3) Eligible treatment technology.--The term `eligible 
     treatment technology' means a treatment technology included 
     on the list published under subsection (c).
       ``(4) PFAS.--The term `PFAS' means a perfluoroalkyl or 
     polyfluoroalkyl substance with at least one fully fluorinated 
     carbon atom.''.

     SEC. 8. LISTING OF PERFLUOROALKYL AND POLYFLUOROALKYL 
                   SUBSTANCES AS HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS.

       (a) Listing.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator

[[Page H127]]

     of the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue a final 
     rule adding as a class all perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
     substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to 
     the list of hazardous air pollutants under section 112(b) of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)).
       (b) Sources Categories.--Not later than 365 days after the 
     final rule is issued pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     revise the list under section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7412(c)(1)) to include categories and 
     subcategories of major sources and area sources of 
     perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances listed pursuant 
     to such final rule.

     SEC. 9. PROHIBITION ON UNSAFE WASTE INCINERATION OF PFAS.

       Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6924) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(z) PFAS Wastes.--
       ``(1) Firefighting foam.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     promulgate regulations requiring that when materials 
     containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or 
     aqueous film forming foam are disposed--
       ``(A) all incineration is conducted in a manner that 
     eliminates perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances 
     while also minimizing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
     substances emitted into the air to the extent feasible;
       ``(B) all incineration is conducted in accordance with the 
     requirements of the Clean Air Act, including controlling 
     hydrogen fluoride;
       ``(C) any materials containing perfluoroalkyl and 
     polyfluoroalkyl substances that are designated for disposal 
     are stored in accordance with the requirement under part 264 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(D) all incineration is conducted at a facility that has 
     been permitted to receive waste regulated under this 
     subtitle.
       ``(2) Penalties.--For purposes of section 3008(d), a waste 
     subject to a prohibition under this subsection shall be 
     considered a hazardous waste identified or listed under this 
     subtitle.''.

     SEC. 10. LABEL FOR PFAS-FREE PRODUCTS

       (a) Label for PFAS-Free Products.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency shall--
       (1) revise the Safer Choice Standard of the Safer Choice 
     Program to identify the requirements for a pot, pan, or 
     cooking utensil to meet in order to be labeled with a Safer 
     Choice label, including a requirement that any such pot, pan, 
     or cooking utensil does not contain any PFAS; or
       (2) establish a voluntary label that is available to be 
     used by any manufacturer of any pot, pan, or cooking utensil 
     that the Administrator has reviewed and found does not 
     contain any PFAS.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``PFAS'' means a 
     perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance with at least one 
     fully fluorinated carbon atom.

     SEC. 11. GUIDANCE ON MINIMIZING THE USE OF FIREFIGHTING FOAM 
                   AND OTHER RELATED EQUIPMENT CONTAINING ANY 
                   PFAS.

       (a) Guidance.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in consultation with the head of the U.S. 
     Fire Administration and other relevant Federal departments or 
     agencies, shall issue guidance on minimizing the use of 
     firefighting foam and other related equipment containing any 
     PFAS by firefighters, police officers, paramedics, emergency 
     medical technicians, and other first responders, in order to 
     minimize the risk to such firefighters, police officers, 
     paramedics, emergency medical technicians, and other first 
     responders, and the environment, without jeopardizing 
     firefighting efforts.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``PFAS'' means 
     perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, and any 
     other perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance with at 
     least one fully fluorinated carbon atom that the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     determines is used in firefighting foam and other related 
     equipment.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
order except those printed in part B of House Report 116-366. Each such 
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 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.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Woodall

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 47, line 7, insert ``, Federal Aviation 
     Administration,'' after ``U.S. Fire Administration''.
       Page 47, line 8, insert ``and representatives of State and 
     local building and fire code enforcement jurisdictions'' 
     after ``departments or agencies''.
       Page 47, line 9, insert ``, or contact with,'' after ``use 
     of''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I introduced this amendment in partnership 
with my friend from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), with whom I serve on 
the Rules Committee and with whom I serve on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  I have a poster here, Mr. Chairman, of what it looks like when the 
foam is released to prevent a fuel fire in an airport hangar. If you 
can't tell from where you are sitting, this is the tail of the airplane 
being lifted up above the foam.
  As currently drafted, I certainly agree with the ranking member that 
this bill is much too expansive. But in this one limited case, it 
doesn't go far enough. Our building code enforcement agencies locally, 
our local fire codes, require that in order to have a hangar permitted, 
it must have these fire suppression systems.
  But what we found in our research, Mr. Chairman, is that more often 
than not, these systems go off unintentionally. In fact, in the last 16 
years, there have been 174 hangar foam releases like this one. Only 37 
of those were in response to an actual incident. The other 137 were 
accidental releases.
  If we are concerned about these toxic chemicals, certainly having 
them available for a dire firefighting need but released accidentally, 
it advantages no one. In fact, even in the 37 incidents that were in 
response to a fire event, none of those were in response to the fuel 
fire event that the building code requires these systems be installed 
to suppress.
  What my amendment does, Mr. Chairman, in partnership with Mr. 
DeSaulnier, is to say that when we are having these conversations about 
how to restrict the use of these foams, we need to have the FAA present 
in those conversations, and we need to have the local enforcement 
authorities for fire and building code safety present in those 
conversations to prevent these types of releases, again, that advantage 
no one.
  It is an opportunity to take what is a very well-intended effort to 
reduce the use of these chemicals and reduce it even further.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment builds on an important piece 
of this bill, the guidance for firefighters and other first responders 
to minimize their risk from PFAS chemicals. This provision was 
developed by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, and I thank her for her 
leadership on addressing this important concern.
  Our first responders take enormous risks every day for the greater 
good. Cancer from occupational exposure should not be among those 
risks. Unfortunately, occupational-related cancers now account for 65 
percent of the line-of-duty deaths for firefighters each year.
  Last year, Pat Morrison of the International Association of Fire 
Fighters testified before my subcommittee on the impacts PFAS in 
firefighting gear have had on firefighters. This is the single largest 
health-related issue facing the firefighting profession.
  I thank Representative Fletcher for her work in protecting 
firefighters, and I also thank the gentlemen from Georgia and 
California for their efforts on this important topic.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Woodall-DeSaulnier 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Khanna).
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the PFAS Action 
Act.

[[Page H128]]

  The facts are that the industry, the Pentagon, and the EPA knew that 
PFAS are hazardous to health, yet we did not do anything as a Congress 
until Representative Dingell had the courage to lead this act to get a 
bipartisan group together. I salute Representative Dingell for her 
leadership.
  I am proud to have sponsored the PFAS waste incineration act. The 
marked-up bill is included in the package. The provision requires the 
EPA to ensure all incineration of PFAS waste is done properly.
  I thank Chairman Tonko and Chairman Pallone for their leadership on 
this issue and also the ranking members for at least their work on the 
incineration part of PFAS and making sure that the waste is marked 
``hazardous.''
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Jackson Lee). The gentleman from Georgia has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is the ranking minority member.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I, too, rise in support of this amendment.
  It is my understanding this amends section 18 to ensure the FAA, 
State and local building code inspectors, and fire marshals are at the 
guidance-making table. I understand the officers believe this will 
result in a broader collaborative dialogue that includes the risks 
posed by the use of foam suppression systems in aviation hangars. That 
would be helpful. I understand that, in aircraft hangars, foam systems 
are not being used by first responders pursuant to Federal regulations.
  I have one question for the sponsor of the amendment about his intent 
with regard to one item. Is this amendment intended to open a dialogue 
about human health impacts or standards, or personal protective 
equipment requirements, responses, protocols, or anything like that?
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman for his question. Absolutely not. 
What the amendment does is it has language, Madam Chair, that inserts 
the words ``or contact with'' to make that point that firefighters are 
not using the foam; they are responding after the foam has already been 
used.

  As Mr. Shimkus knows, when they come in contact with the foam in the 
course of their duties, it is our intent to lower the probability of 
any release of toxic foam on airfields. As I said, most of these 
releases are accidental releases. By bringing the building code 
inspectors to the table, we believe that we can reduce all instances of 
release without opening the dialogue on the topics about which he 
inquired.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague for the explanation.
  I also would highlight that under this bill, airports are exempt from 
the Superfund liability. It does pose a question of who cleans up the 
composed contamination on airports if we are going to protect airports 
from the liability. I guess airports went out; other communities do 
not.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, I will close by saying we may disagree 
about, again, the breadth of the overall legislation, but as it comes 
to this individual line-item, we are talking primarily about accidental 
releases of a very important firefighting foam but one that we know we 
want to reduce the usage of, the bipartisan partnership that we have 
created with the support of the chairman and ranking member. I am 
grateful to them for their leadership and support.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I remind everyone that PFOS/PFOA are 
dangerous contaminants that threaten individual lives and our 
communities, as our firefighters have pointed out, in various, various 
dimensions.
  Madam Chair, I rise to support the amendment and the overall bill, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Strike section 2.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, this amendment would strike section 2 of 
H.R. 535.
  Section 2 of H.R. 535 requires the Environmental Protection Agency to 
designate the chemicals PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 
also known as the Superfund, and to do this within 1 year of enactment, 
and requires a review of the entire PFAS chemical group within 5 years.
  I believe this to be flawed for several reasons:
  First and foremost, the Environmental Protection Agency is already 
undergoing a thorough examination of the chemicals known as PFAS. 
Section 2 circumvents the regulatory process and would deny any public 
notice, any public comment, or any scientific study before deeming PFOA 
and PFOS as hazardous chemicals under the Superfund.
  Any substance designated as a hazardous substance under CERCLA 
attaches strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability 
conditions. If you had any stake in the production, any stake in the 
ownership or cleanup of such a substance, that party might be liable 
under the Superfund law. The public has a right to comment on the 
impacts of such an important measure.
  Second, section 2 is simply impractical. In the 40 years since the 
passage of the Superfund bill, Congress has never specifically placed 
individual chemicals or chemical groups into statute as hazardous 
chemicals under this act.
  In those 40 years, 800 chemicals have been added to this list through 
the regulatory process. The Environmental Protection Agency is 
currently aware of between 5,000 and possibly as many as 7,800 PFAS 
chemicals. The problem is we don't know how many exist. The EPA would 
not be able to properly evaluate the thousands of chemicals that make 
up the PFAS in only 5 years.
  PFAS chemicals must be properly assessed with the best science 
possible. As currently written, section 2 of the legislation denies the 
EPA the ability to properly and thoroughly evaluate these chemicals and 
shuts out the public from commenting on the regulatory impacts, 
including the potential future development of safer PFAS chemicals.
  Madam Chair, for these reasons, I urge support of the amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, this amendment would strike the Superfund 
provision from this bill completely. It will significantly weaken this 
bill and leave hundreds of impacted communities in harm's way.
  What does the Superfund provision in this bill do exactly? H.R. 535 
lists only PFOA and PFOS under Superfund and leaves decisions for all 
other PFAS to EPA.
  EPA has already committed to listing PFOA and PFOS under Superfund 
and has been working on the listings since 2018. So this bill does not 
prejudge EPA decisions. EPA has already made those decisions.
  The bill will speed up that listing so that cleanup of existing 
contamination starts sooner, which is critical. It also sets up a 
reasonable deadline for EPA to make decisions on other PFAS chemicals 
under Superfund to speed up any additional needed cleanups.
  Superfund cleanups are essential to public health, and for impacted 
communities, they can be the difference between health and sickness, 
between life and death.
  The question before Members on this amendment is whether cleanups of 
PFOA and PFOS should start right away or whether impacted communities 
can continue to wait.

[[Page H129]]

  While EPA drags its feet, people in hundreds of impacted communities 
across the country will continue to be exposed and continue to be 
harmed. Pollution will spread from these sites into the environment, 
into sources of drinking water, and into our agricultural resources. 
And eventual cleanups will become harder and more costly.
  Madam Chair, impacted communities cannot afford to wait. I urge my 
colleagues, therefore, to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Balderson).
  Mr. BALDERSON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding and for offering such an important amendment.
  Madam Chair, I agree that section 2 of the underlying bill presents a 
grave problem.
  PFAS were first used in the 1940s and continued to be used in a 
variety of everyday objects, including pizza boxes, food wrappers, 
nonstick cookware, stain-resistant furniture, water-resistant clothes, 
firefighters' protective suits, and medical devices.
  I support this amendment because it would prevent so many important 
materials from being labeled as hazardous without the scientific proof 
to back it up. We should not label all 5,000 of these materials the 
same way.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, PFAS chemicals must be properly assessed with the best 
science possible. As currently written, section 2 of this legislation 
denies the EPA the ability to properly and thoroughly evaluate these 
chemicals. We are literally making the perfect the enemy of the good.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. Superfund is a landmark environmental law and an essential 
public health program that works.

  There are contaminated sites all across this country that pose direct 
threats to human health and the environment because of pollutants like 
lead, mercury, PCBs, and asbestos. Superfund is the program that gets 
those sites cleaned up.
  Superfund does not regulate the use of chemicals; it does not block 
the use of chemicals; and it does not assign liability for the use of 
chemicals. It only applies to the release of chemicals into the 
environment.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
characterized Superfund as a de facto ban. They say that the industry 
will so fear liability that they will abandon PFAS chemicals.
  Experience shows that that simply is not true. There are hundreds of 
chemicals listed under Superfund that continue to be used in industrial 
and consumer products and by the Department of Defense. In fact, 
Superfund is designed to prevent releases of chemicals that are in 
continued use.
  When a chemical is listed as a hazardous air pollutant under the 
Clean Air Act, EPA sets emission limits for that chemical that are 
implemented through permits. Facilities continue to use and emit those 
chemicals. At the same time, those chemicals are automatically listed 
under Superfund. The same is true under the Clean Water Act.
  Madam Chair, the funny thing is that the two PFAS compounds covered 
by this bill, PFOA and PFOS, have already been phased out for more than 
a decade under a voluntary partnership between EPA and industry.
  We have heard many concerns from my Republican friends about the 
specter of Superfund liability for different groups. These concerns are 
largely unfounded.
  Drinking water utilities will handle PFOA and PFOS the same way they 
handle the hundreds of hazardous substances they currently remove from 
drinking water. The same will be true for wastewater utilities.
  Farmers will continue to be able to use biosolids as fertilizer, just 
as they currently do, because Superfund already exempts fertilizer use. 
Manufacturers of airplane door seals and heart stents will be able to 
continue using the PFAS they currently use--all while impacted 
communities, like Michigan, will get the cleanup that they need.
  The only change this bill makes in how Superfund operates is a 
limited exemption for federally required use of PFAS at airports. If 
this amendment were adopted, airports would lose that exemption. And if 
EPA eventually moves forward with listing PFOA and PFAS, as they have 
committed to do, EPA is not authorized to exempt airports. Only 
Congress can do that. So the airports need this amendment defeated, and 
they need this bill enacted.
  A Superfund listing is an essential provision to accelerate PFAS 
cleanup nationwide. It is the foundation of the PFAS Action Act. By 
gutting it, we cripple our ability to serve and protect the American 
people responsibly.
  Madam Chair, I join my colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Environment and Climate Change, in urging a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 9, 2020, on page H129, the following appeared: The 
Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess). The question was taken; and 
the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The Acting CHAIR. 
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair 
announced that the noes appeared to have it.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  The Chair is advised that amendment No. 3 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hudson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 19. INVESTIGATION OF PREVENTION OF CONTAMINATION BY 
                   GENX.

       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall investigate methods and means to prevent contamination 
     by GenX of surface waters, including source waters used for 
     drinking water purposes.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer my first amendment to 
H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act.
  For the last several years, my constituents and neighboring 
communities in North Carolina have dealt with contamination from the 
PFAS chemical GenX. The company Chemours has been discharging this 
chemical into the air as well as the waters of the Cape Fear River, a 
common source of drinking water.
  To put it simply, my constituents are scared. They are frustrated 
because this has been an ongoing issue, and they don't have enough 
information.
  This is an issue that I have been working on for many years. I have 
demanded action by EPA, and I had the EPA come to Fayetteville and hear 
directly from our community.
  At our community engagement event, hundreds of people attended, and 
many shared their concerns with the potential links between GenX and 
serious health problems.
  I worked with our chairman to have an Energy and Commerce hearing, 
and we invited Emily Donovan, a founding member of Clean Cape Fear in 
North Carolina, to testify. Emily gave compelling testimony about her 
personal experiences and the many people who have ``suffered from the 
trauma of cancer treatments, benign tumors, and terminal diagnosis.''
  I have talked with many of my constituents, including one whose 
neighbor has cancer, and they don't know if it is connected to GenX. 
They can't get information about it, and they are worried about their 
own children.
  This is about getting answers for our community. This is about making 
sure

[[Page H130]]

my constituents are protected and the water we are drinking is safe.
  Until I know the science behind GenX, until I know exactly what safe 
levels and unsafe levels of exposure are, until we can adequately clean 
up the exposure we have had in North Carolina, I am not going to be 
satisfied.
  I have a letter here from Secretary Michael Regan of the North 
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality supporting this effort.
  Madam Chair, I include that letter in the Record.
                                                    north carolina


                                        Environmental Quality,

                                     Raleigh, NC, January 9, 2020.
     Hon. Richard Hudson,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hudson: As you know North Carolina has 
     been at the forefront in dealing with the issue of emerging 
     compounds. Because of the lack of guidance or action from the 
     current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), our 
     state and others have taken the lead on the necessary 
     investigations, scientific evaluations, remediation and 
     enforcement actions for PFAS contamination caused by 
     government and industrial uses.
       It is clear that members of Congress, on both sides of the 
     aisle, understand the urgent need to immediately address the 
     contamination from PFAS chemicals, especially in North 
     Carolina. The North Carolina Department of Environmental 
     Quality appreciates the leadership you and the state's 
     delegation are providing to advance the conversation 
     surrounding PFAS and GenX as we continue in our mission to 
     protect our state's water and air.
       I look forward to continued dialogue with you and your 
     colleagues to encourage the U.S. EPA to move more quickly to 
     set PFAS health standards and protections. I hope that we can 
     count on you and the entire delegation to push for much-
     needed resources and support to address current and future 
     contamination and remediation needs involving these forever 
     chemicals.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael S. Regan,
                                         Secretary, North Carolina
                              Department of Environmental Quality.

  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Chair, while I understand it takes time to develop 
the scientific evidence to make these decisions, my neighbors are tired 
of waiting. We must act now.
  My amendment adopts this commonsense approach and requires the EPA to 
investigate methods and means to prevent contamination by GenX of 
surface waters, including source waters used for drinking purposes. 
This will enable us to find the best ways possible to safeguard our 
waters both now and for future generations.
  Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, 
Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and my good friend and 
colleague Mr.   David Rouzer all for working with me on this, and I 
urge the rest of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, though I do 
not plan to oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, GenX is a group of PFAS chemicals that have 
been a particular concern for several communities. Last year, the 
Energy and Commerce Committee heard testimony from a member of one of 
those communities, Emily Donovan, of the group Clean Cape Fear.
  Emily testified about the burden of disease in her community, 
including her husband's cancer, and the burden of having to educate and 
protect her community without the protections and resources of our 
Federal environmental laws.
  Her group, Clean Cape Fear, had to seek donations to install drinking 
water treatment for the public schools of her town so that the children 
could have safe water to drink at school. That is just not right.
  So I appreciate these North Carolina Members raising the issue of 
GenX to help Emily and other people impacted by GenX. I thank the 
gentlemen for their amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and this bill.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the ranking member of the 
committee.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, my colleague, Mr. Hudson, has led the 
committee's efforts to address GenX on behalf of his constituents in 
North Carolina. He has pressed EPA to complete its human health 
toxicity assessment on GenX using science.
  This amendment takes the next step to focus EPA on ways to keep 
people's drinking water safe under GenX. This is a prudent step to 
harness the technical expertise of the EPA to identify ways to reduce 
contamination of the substance, which will be useful in connection with 
EPA's other work and will aim to stop future problems like those in 
Cape Fear River. I applaud my colleague and friend for his work.
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I support the Hudson amendment, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do likewise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hudson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 37, line 20, insert ``, including the chemical GenX'' 
     after ``carbon atom''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer my second amendment to 
H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019.
  As I have just described, the chemical GenX has been a major concern 
for my constituents for years.
  As I have already stated, my constituents are scared, and they don't 
know what the long-term health effects of being exposed to these 
chemicals will be.
  Madam Chair, we cannot wait to begin the cleanup of drinking waters 
that have been affected by these chemicals. While this bill is far from 
perfect, I am encouraged that it does create a PFAS Infrastructure 
Grant Program to provide assistance to community water systems affected 
by PFAS.
  My amendment would simply clarify that communities like mine that 
have been impacted by GenX are eligible for grants under this section. 
It would not affect the program in any way, other than providing 
clarity and relief to the people of North Carolina.
  I know that we still have a lot of work to do to solve the PFAS 
issue. I am committed to working with all Members of Congress, 
Republicans and Democrats, as well as State and local leaders to make 
sure we are taking care of our communities. Everyone deserves clean 
water.
  Today, we are taking a positive step, and I look forward to 
continuing to work on this issue. I would urge all of my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.
  The Acting CHAIR (Miss Rice of New York). Without objection, the 
gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, this amendment explicitly includes GenX 
chemicals in the definition of PFAS covered by the legislation.
  I want to be clear that GenX are PFAS chemicals and are already 
covered by this provision, regardless of whether this amendment is 
adopted.
  I am happy to support, however, the amendment because we absolutely 
mean for this funding to be available to remove GenX from drinking 
water. But

[[Page H131]]

no one should interpret this amendment as implying that GenX are not 
already covered within the definition of PFAS.
  I also want to mention one important thing about GenX. We have heard 
a lot today about how PFOA and PFAS are dangerous, but that newer PFAS 
might be safer. I want to make certain that everyone understands, GenX 
is one of those supposedly safer alternatives. It is a set of short-
chain PFAS that were developed to replace PFOA.
  GenX is a great example of why we need the moratorium on new PFAS 
included in this bill, because if EPA had the needed science in hand 
when GenX was introduced, communities in North Carolina, and 
nationwide, might never have been impacted.
  That is what we are trying to accomplish with this bill. We want to 
help the communities that have been impacted and head off future 
harmful pollution.
  I thank the gentlemen for their amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment and this bill.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Chair, I just want to say thank you to Chairman 
Tonko for working with me on this very important issue.
  Again, folks back home in North Carolina are very concerned, to put 
it mildly. And so to give them a little bit of clarity, a little bit of 
certainty that GenX is covered means a lot to folks back home, so I 
appreciate the gentleman working with me on this.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I appreciate the kind words from the 
gentleman from North Carolina. I appreciate working with him. I 
encourage my colleagues to support the Hudson amendment, his second 
amendment, and I will do likewise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Balderson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. BALDERSON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 19. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not take 
     effect until the date that the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency certifies that the 
     Environmental Protection Agency has completed the actions 
     described in the document titled ``EPA's Per- and 
     Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan'' and dated 
     February, 2019.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Balderson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BALDERSON. Madam Chair, my amendment would require the EPA 
administrator to certify to Congress the agency has completed its own 
PFAS Action Plan before the underlying bill may be implemented.
  My amendment acknowledges the concern for human health and the 
environment caused by drinking water contamination and enables the EPA, 
the appropriate regulatory agency, to improve the situation through 
careful science.
  PFAS are synthetic chemicals used in a variety of products that have 
commercial, industrial, and military uses. These substances are often 
found in everyday objects and relied upon by Americans.
  One of the most important uses is medical devices. PFAS materials are 
central components of many medical devices because they are bio-
compatible, durable, and deemed safe for implantation when necessary.
  PFAS, and, in fact, fluoropolymers, have lifesaving applications in 
medical devices, including heart patches and grafts, stents, and 
surgical mesh. They are found in catheters and other medical tubing and 
guide wires used in surgical patients and to treat thousands of 
diseases. These substances are even found in sterile coatings on 
hospital gowns, masks, and other tools needed to keep hospital settings 
sterile and fight infections.
  In my district of Ohio 12, medical device producers make these 
critical products and contribute to improving patients' lives every 
day.
  Clearly, not all PFAS are the same. To assert that all these 5,000-
plus substances are hazardous in one move is not based on science and 
it is dangerous. That would call into question the already approved 
medical devices that are saving lives.
  The better solution is to allow the EPA to do its work and look at 
each chemical on its own merits, rather than labeling the whole diverse 
class as hazardous.
  I agree with the authors of this bill that we must be cautious with 
the use of chemicals and reduce their levels in our water supplies, but 
this cannot be done at the jeopardy of American patients.
  That is why I am thrilled to learn about EPA's PFAS Action Plan, 
which the agency published last year in response to greater awareness 
of this issue and rising public health concerns. As part of this plan, 
the EPA works with Federal, State, and local partners to understand and 
act on known PFAS dangers.
  The EPA plan is a comprehensive, cross-agency approach. It includes 
concrete steps to monitor, detect, and address PFAS contamination.
  One major action worth noting that the EPA has already taken is the 
December 3 proposal to establish a maximum contaminant level. This 
important step toward public safety is currently under interagency 
review.
  For the well-being of all Americans, we should support this plan's 
success.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would block implementation of the important public 
health protections in this bill until the EPA administrator certifies 
that its PFAS Action Plan is completed.
  Let's be clear about something. This EPA is never going to complete 
that action plan. EPA has already failed to meet the weak deadlines it 
set for itself in that.
  We were supposed to have a regulatory determination for PFOA and PFAS 
in drinking water. We do not. We were supposed to have designations of 
PFOA and PFAS under Superfund. In fact, in EPA's action plan they note 
that they started that activity in 2018. They haven't gotten it done.
  We were supposed to have EPA action to require reporting of PFAS 
releases on the Toxics Release Inventory. We had to attach that to the 
NDAA to get it done.
  And, by the way, Republicans supported taking that action on NDAA.
  But even these specifics are giving this amendment too much credit. 
This is not a serious amendment because EPA's Action Plan is not 
designed to ever be completed. Many of the action items are 
characterized by the EPA itself as ongoing commitments.
  Here is an example. EPA committed to holding responsible parties 
accountable for PFAS releases into the environment. That task is an 
ongoing commitment that can never be completed.
  Evaluating new science, evaluating new PFAS, assessing new drinking 
water treatment technology, these are all things EPA will continue 
doing indefinitely.
  In fact, one of the stated purposes of EPA's action plan is 
``preventing future contamination.'' When will EPA ever be done 
preventing future contamination?
  So this amendment would actually block the important provisions in 
this bill from ever being implemented. It would harm public health and 
leave our communities worse off. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BALDERSON. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for the opportunity to support this amendment to this 
deeply-flawed bill.

[[Page H132]]

  Madam Chair, I rise this evening in support of the Balderson 
amendment. H.R. 535 will have broad and significant impact on medical 
innovation and negatively impact patient outcomes.
  PFAS materials have a variety of uses in healthcare, ranging from 
cardiac stents to the coating on contact lenses. Using innovative PFAS 
materials, surgeries such as those that were previously used to repair 
a child's congenital heart defect now no longer require risky, open 
heart surgery procedures and can simply be done as an outpatient with 
significantly less risks.

                              {time}  2000

  The EPA is already working on its own comprehensive PFAS Action Plan, 
and we must listen to science rather than regulating new devices and 
treatments out of existence.
  Here is the bottom line: We cannot ignore the benefits that some PFAS 
chemicals have given to humankind.
  Madam Chair, I strongly urge the adoption of the Balderson amendment.
  Mr. BALDERSON. Madam Chair, the administration has demonstrated that 
one of its top priorities is the research and necessary regulation of 
PFAS. Its ongoing commitment to public safety is responsible. Congress 
should allow the EPA to complete its work before casting such a wide 
net on labeling 5,000-plus PFAS as hazardous. This is an opportunity 
for Congress to be proactive rather than reactive.
  I invite Members to join me in supporting thoughtful action to ensure 
the safety of the American public and our environment.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Delgado

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. DISCLOSURE OF INTRODUCTIONS OF PFAS.

       (a) In General.--The introduction of any perfluoroalkyl or 
     polyfluoroalkyl substance by the owner or operator of an 
     industrial source shall be unlawful unless such owner or 
     operator first notifies the owner or operator of the 
     applicable treatment works of--
       (1) the identity and quantity of such substance;
       (2) whether such substance is susceptible to treatment by 
     such treatment works; and
       (3) whether such substance would interfere with the 
     operation of the treatment works.
       (b) Violations.--A violation of this section shall be 
     treated in the same manner as a violation of a regulation 
     promulgated under subsection 307(b) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1317(b)).
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Introduction.--The term ``introduction'' means the 
     introduction of pollutants into treatment works, as described 
     in section 307(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1317).
       (2) Treatment works.--The term ``treatment works'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 212 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Delgado) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, today, I am pleased to offer this 
bipartisan amendment to strengthen this legislation aimed at addressing 
PFAS contamination in our communities.
  Right now, communities in upstate New York continue to struggle with 
the impacts of PFAS contamination in drinking water. Residents of 
Hoosick Falls and Petersburg in Rensselaer County are living every day 
with the impacts of PFAS contamination, which we know include thyroid 
disease, birth defects, autoimmune disorders, and cancer.
  Last year, Emily Marpe, who now lives with her family in Hoosick 
Falls, testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee about her 
experiences with contaminated water in her home in Petersburg, New 
York. Emily spoke about her experiences of being unable to drink the 
water from her faucet and having to sell her home and then test her 
blood as well as the blood of her children for PFOA.
  What Emily described is all too common in my district, and it is 
representative of the experiences of communities across the country. 
This is why PFAS has been a priority of mine and so many in this 
Chamber on both sides of the aisle.
  The PFAS Action Act is a critically important bill. My bipartisan 
amendment will strengthen this legislation and address another element 
of this crisis: indirect discharge. My amendment, which pulls from the 
PFAS Transparency Act, would make it illegal for an industrial facility 
to introduce PFAS into a sewage treatment system without first 
disclosing information about that substance.
  Right now, companies can tap into a public wastewater infrastructure 
and introduce PFAS into our sewage systems, regardless of the local 
treatment plant's ability to effectively treat the contamination.
  Most municipal water treatment plants are not equipped to effectively 
treat for PFAS contamination, which makes indirect discharges extremely 
hazardous, particularly when not disclosed.
  The PFAS Transparency Act establishes a commonsense requirement that 
industrial facilities disclose this information to treatment systems 
beforehand, meaning more transparency and accountability for our 
communities.
  I would like to take this moment to recognize my coleads on this 
measure, Representatives Chris Pappas and Harley Rouda. We introduced 
this PFAS Transparency Act alongside the bipartisan Clean Water 
Standards for PFAS Act of 2020, which would require the EPA to review 
PFAS discharges under the Clean Water Act and issue regulations to 
address harmful discharges of PFAS into our Nation's waterways.
  These bills together take important steps to increase our 
understanding of PFAS in wastewater and address harmful discharges in 
our water system, both direct and indirect.
  I urge this House to stand with our communities facing unthinkable 
consequences of PFAS contamination. Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote 
on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Under the Clean Water Act, many industries discharge directly to 
municipal sewage treatment plants rather than discharge directly to 
surface waters. To address this practice, the Clean Water Act 
established a pretreatment program, which allows sewage treatment 
plants to work with industrial discharge connections to ensure that any 
industrial chemicals are properly treated or that these chemicals do 
not disrupt the normal functioning of the sewage treatment plants.
  However, a pretreatment program is only effective if the sewage 
treatment plant knows which chemicals are being introduced into their 
sewage treatment systems. Yet, there is no current Clean Water Act 
requirement that requires industrial discharges to tell the 
municipality that it plans to release PFAS-related chemicals into the 
sewage system.
  This amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Delgado) 
would address this current loophole. I support this amendment, and I 
appreciate the good work that the gentleman from New York has done not

[[Page H133]]

only for the residents of his congressional district but for the 
residents of this country. This is an important amendment. I appreciate 
the hard work he has done and the sensitivity he has shown.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chairwoman, I am prepared to close, and I want to 
use this opportunity to strengthen our defenses against these dangerous 
``forever chemicals'' and protect our drinking water for generations to 
come.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important bipartisan 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This amendment makes it illegal for an industrial facility to 
introduce PFAS into a sewage treatment system without first disclosing 
information about that substance. This amendment effectively would 
create an entirely new and duplicative regulatory program under the 
Clean Water Act.
  This amendment is an ad hoc attempt at regulating PFAS without any 
consideration of whether or how these requirements would duplicate or 
mesh with the implementation of the EPA PFAS Action Plan or similar, 
already existing regulatory requirements under the Clean Water Act.
  The committee of jurisdiction for this provision is the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and they have held no 
hearings and conducted no stakeholder or scientific community 
engagement or consultation on this issue. As a result, this amendment 
is nothing more than an automatic reaction to regulate in a vacuum 
without risk information and without an understanding of its 
consequences.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Delgado).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Pingree

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 46, line 12, strike ``or cooking utensil'' and insert 
     ``cooking utensil, carpet, or rug, clothing, or upholstered 
     furniture''.
       Page 46, beginning on line 14, strike ``or cooking 
     utensil'' and insert ``cooking utensil, carpet, rug, 
     clothing, or upholstered furniture''.
       Page 46, beginning on line 17, strike ``or cooking 
     utensil'' and insert ``cooking utensil, carpet, rug, 
     clothing, or upholstered furniture''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentlewoman 
from Maine (Ms. Pingree) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maine.
  Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank Chairman Pallone and Congresswoman Dingell for their 
leadership on PFAS issues, and I thank Congresswoman Spanberger, who is 
also a sponsor of this amendment with me.
  I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 535, the PFAS Action 
Act of 2019. This bipartisan bill would take much-needed and long-
overdue action on these forever harmful 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 exposure to them to kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid 
disease, and other health problems.
  PFAS chemicals are concentrated in human and animal blood and tissue 
and can remain there for years. It is estimated that 99 percent of 
Americans have PFAS in their blood.
  In my home State of Maine, PFAS was first discovered from the 
groundwater at former military installations from firefighting foam, 
but PFAS has also been found in our public water supplies, soil, animal 
products, and household products like cookware and carpets.
  A 2015 review by the Environmental Working Group showed the majority 
of PFAS in homes comes from its presence in carpets and textiles. The 
U.S. Centers for Disease Control named carpet as the number one source 
of PFAS exposure for infants and toddlers, who, as you can imagine, 
spend a lot of time playing, lying, and crawling on carpets.
  My amendment would expand the Environmental Protection Agency's Safer 
Choice label to additional household products, including carpet, rugs, 
clothing, or upholstered furniture certified not to contain PFAS. This 
change would prompt manufacturers to develop safer alternatives and 
help consumers find and buy healthier products for their homes.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in taking action for the health of 
our communities and the environment and vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Maine for 
yielding.
  I support the Pingree-Spanberger amendment, which would expand the 
voluntary label for PFAS-free products to include carpets, rugs, 
clothing, and upholstered furniture.
  The PFAS-free label created under this bill was developed by 
Representative Soto to help consumers who are trying to protect 
themselves from PFAS risks. I thank Mr. Soto for his work on that 
provision.
  Expanding that label to cover carpeting, rugs, clothing, and 
upholstered furniture makes great sense. Recent data suggests that 
those consumer products can be a significant source of PFAS exposure 
and that PFAS-free products are available on the market. Currently, 
consumers have no clear way to know which rugs have PFAS and which do 
not.
  Manufacturers that are taking steps to produce these items without 
PFAS have no way of distinguishing their products in the marketplace. 
This amendment will give them that tool.
  I congratulate both Representatives Pingree and Spanberger for their 
sensitivity to consumers by placing this amendment before us. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment and the overall bill.
  Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, consumers have the right to know what 
harmful chemicals are in their homes, and they should have the ability 
to choose products that keep their families and their environment safe.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, this amendment expands EPA's Safer Choice program to 
include carpets, rugs, clothing, and upholstered furniture that do not 
contain PFAS.
  The Safer Choice program was not meant to cover products like this, 
and it will be extremely expensive and time-consuming to do so. 
Revisions to the program of this type are not consistent with the 
intent of the program and would require significant changes to the 
program to implement it effectively.
  To establish this standard, EPA would have to hold listening sessions 
and propose and finalize changes to the Safer Choice standard. Public 
involvement would have to be substantial.
  Most importantly, for consumers' information, labeling indicating the 
absence of PFAS does not necessarily mean a safer product, which 
undermines the purpose of the EPA program.
  In addition, when bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA, was used in 
baby bottles, companies and retailers who made bottles with other 
substances had no problem labeling their products as BPA-free.
  In some ways, this is a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign for 
corporations that can cut commercials for their products themselves.
  In some ways, the Federal Government needs to get into this area. A 
better way would be to have a collaborative among the EPA, the Consumer

[[Page H134]]

Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Food 
and Drug Administration to make recommendations on how to convey any 
risk from these products.
  This is not the right way to address this issue.
  Madam Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following section:

     SEC. 19. HOUSEHOLD WELL WATER TESTING WEBSITE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall establish a website containing 
     information relating to the testing of household well water.
       (b) Contents.--The Administrator shall include on the 
     website established under subsection (a) the following:
       (1) Information on how to get groundwater that is the 
     source for a household water well tested by a well inspector 
     who is certified by a qualified third party.
       (2) A list of laboratories that analyze water samples and 
     are certified by a State or the Administrator.
       (3) State-specific information, developed in coordination 
     with each State, on naturally occurring and human-induced 
     contaminants.
       (4) Information that, using accepted risk communication 
     techniques, clearly communicates whether a test result value 
     exceeds a level determined by the Administrator or the State 
     to pose a health risk.
       (5) Information on treatment options, including information 
     relating to water treatment systems certified by the National 
     Science Foundation or the American National Standards 
     Institute, and people who are qualified to install such 
     systems.
       (6) A directory of whom to contact to report a test result 
     value that exceeds a level determined by the Administrator or 
     the State to pose a health risk.
       (7) Information on financial assistance that is available 
     for homeowners to support water treatment, including grants 
     under section 306E of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926e) and State resources.
       (8) Any other information the Administrator considers 
     appropriate.
       (c) Coordination.--The Administrator shall coordinate with 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and appropriate State agencies in carrying out 
     this section.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2021.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  One community I represent is Oscoda, a small town in the northern 
part of my district. It was once the home of the Wurtsmith Air Force 
Base.
  Even though that base closed more than two decades ago, the Oscoda 
community is now dealing with PFAS contamination from the base that is 
leaching into their drinking water and the nearby lakes.
  For years, I have been fighting to help the people of Oscoda clean up 
PFAS contamination.
  In January of last year, 1 year ago, I, along with Congressman Brian 
Fitzpatrick, founded the bipartisan Congressional PFAS Task Force to 
bring Republicans and Democrats together to address this growing and 
urgent public health threat. We now have 50 members up from the 14 
members that we started with. As more Members of Congress learn about 
contamination in their districts, they are joining this movement.
  We are beginning to know the problem, and we know that we have to do 
more urgently to act to clean up and address PFAS in the environment.
  That is why I am a strong supporter of the bipartisan PFAS Action 
Act, a bill pushed through the Energy and Commerce Committee with the 
support of many Members, but most importantly, my Michigan colleague, 
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell.
  According to the Environmental Working Group, over 100 million people 
are exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. This isn't acceptable. 
Every American deserves clean drinking water.
  The PFAS Action Act will help protect families from PFAS in their 
drinking water, lakes, rivers, and streams and in the air by requiring 
PFAS to be listed under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water 
Act, and the Clean Air Act. It will also require polluters and 
corporations to clean up their PFAS contamination through CERCLA.
  It is important that Congress acts, because the Trump administration 
has not.
  While the EPA and the Defense Department both have had authority to 
protect the public from PFAS, they have so far failed in their 
responsibilities to address this public health crisis.
  The EPA has run a public relations campaign to convince us that they 
care about PFAS but has failed to act to regulate these dangerous 
chemicals, even missing their own promised deadlines to act.
  Just this week, the White House signaled that it would likely veto 
this legislation. In threatening to veto this bill, President Trump and 
his administration clearly are siding with polluters instead of 
protecting the health of the American people.
  This act represents a continued push by this bipartisan group of 
legislators for much-needed legislation to clean up PFAS and to 
safeguard us from these chemicals.
  Some of the provisions in this bill were taken out of the recently 
passed NDAA by Senate Republicans, who sided again with President Trump 
and the administration on behalf of corporate polluters to block these 
provisions from becoming law.
  While we were able to include many good PFAS provisions in the NDAA, 
including phasing out of firefighting foam, requiring polluters to 
report when they release PFAS into the environment, and allowing for a 
nationwide study of PFAS contamination, many of these critical 
provisions were ultimately blocked by Senate Republicans.
  The House will continue to act to protect public health and urge 
action for Oscoda and so many other places around the country.
  I also, obviously, urge the passage of my amendment, which would 
promote transparency and streamline EPA resources to help people 
potentially exposed to PFAS and other contaminants to understand better 
what their test results mean.
  In the U.S., well water is essentially unregulated. For the 43 
million people in our country with well water, when they get testing 
results back, it is hard for them to understand how it could impact 
their family's water supply.
  Under this amendment, the EPA website would be simplified and 
streamlined, making it easier for millions of American families to 
understand the threat they face.
  Madam Chair, I thank my colleagues, Congressman Kind from Wisconsin 
and Congressman Gallagher, for supporting me with this amendment. I 
encourage its adoption.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this.
  Just to be clear, I support the underlying legislation, obviously. 
The amendment simply requires that we provide an opportunity for people 
who are potentially going to be affected by PFAS, particularly in 
drinking water but also from other sources, to be able to understand 
easily the threat they face.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this. Ultimately, this amendment is about making sure people 
are armed with the information that they need to protect their 
families.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I appreciate my friend and colleague from

[[Page H135]]

Michigan. He has been very active on this issue for many years now, and 
I respect his intensity and his efforts. A couple of things, because a 
lot of the debate was initially just on the overall bill.
  It is the Senate that caused us not to enact all these provisions in 
the NDAA. That is why they are on record as not going to move this 
bill.
  We did have a chance for the Safe Drinking Water Act to be included 
in the final piece of legislation. That was blocked by someone, and 
now, here we are.
  The President has threatened to veto the act. You are correct about 
that.
  Mr. Kildee also raised the benefits of what we did do, and I listed 
them earlier, from the EPA to mandate that drinking water systems 
monitor for unregulated PFAS, provide grants to communities, require 
new reporting of PFAS under the Toxics Release Inventory program, 
require manufacturers and processors of PFAS to submit health and 
safety information--these are all law today--restrictions on new uses 
of long-change PFAS, guidance for appropriate destruction of per- or 
polyfluorinated compounds, require the Federal Government to work 
expeditiously with States to enter into binding cooperative agreements. 
That is particularly important for the gentleman's State, which was a 
success. Of course, I have many more.
  I would also like to highlight the appropriations bill, which 
included $2.8 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund, with that $20 million going for this issue.
  You do adequately highlight the success that we made at the end of 
last year on these two programs. We don't want to diminish the success. 
I know it is not as far as a lot of people wanted to go, but there was 
some success.
  To your amendment, it is a federalism debate. Water wells in States 
are regulated, controlled, and tested by the States, not the EPA.
  Under this amendment, the Federal Government would have to collect 
and manage information about individuals and their property. This 
amendment, both broad and vague at the same time, would be an enormous 
expansion of the Federal Government into an area that has been governed 
by States.
  If these wells in the gentleman's State are not being tested, they 
are not being tested by his State, and I know his State is very 
aggressive.
  Mr. KILDEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. You raise an excellent point. The issue is, we could 
mandate, if you would choose to, that States provide information on a 
website that is easily discernible. The problem is that while wells and 
other sources may be tested--I don't know if you have had the 
opportunity to read the published tests from those examinations. The 
idea of the amendment is not just to see that the information is 
somehow available somewhere but available in a fashion that is easily 
discernible by people who are not scientists.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, so you are saying your State is not 
capable of doing it themselves? I mean, your State health department 
can't do the research?
  You are also talking about private wells on private property, 
bringing the Feds in to list the water systems for that. Obviously, 
under the system of Federal Government, we are raising some concerns on 
that amendment.
  Let me continue. If I have some time, we can go on.
  In addition to State departments of health that certify the 
laboratories--it is your department of health that certifies the 
laboratories that test the water, not EPA, as this legislation implies.
  It would place a lot of burdens on EPA to carry out a program that 
States and local governments could more easily and appropriately 
handle. It would also likely take more than a year to establish this 
program, which is all the bill provides in this statutory language.
  I believe this amendment also places serious unfunded mandates on 
States.
  Finally, I have questions about whether the information being 
collected and disseminated under this amendment can be done in a way 
that meets the proper risk communication strategies called for in the 
Brown amendment.
  That is why we have problems with this amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman, my friend.
  Mr. KILDEE. I appreciate the gentleman's concern.
  I think we may simply have a disagreement as to whether or not there 
is a legitimate Federal role in ensuring that this information is 
readily available.
  I understand the point about States, but I believe this is a national 
interest in part because it is the Federal Government very often which 
is the biggest culprit here.
  The community, for example, that I represent in Oscoda, where so many 
individuals had their private wells affected, they were affected by the 
Federal Government's poisoning of the groundwater.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I wish I could debate longer, but my time has expired.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), I rise to offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 2, add the following:
       (c) Public Availability.--Not later than 60 days after 
     making a determination under subsection (b), the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     make the results of such determination publicly available on 
     the website of the Environmental Protection Agency.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Tonko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  I thank Congress Member Lawrence for her work on this amendment.
  The amendment, Madam Chair, is simple. It would ensure that the 
public is notified when any additional chemicals in the PFAS family are 
designated as hazardous substances.
  More specifically, this amendment requires the EPA to publish its 
determinations on the remaining PFAS chemicals on its publicly 
accessible website within 60 days.
  Public reporting helps communicate how government is working for the 
people. For agencies like the EPA, full transparency is necessary to 
inform our communities about threats to public health and the 
environment.

                              {time}  2030

  Our constituents have the right to know exactly what contaminants are 
in the air we breathe and the water we drink. As she noted in her 
statement in support of her amendment, in her home State of Michigan, 
she knows the importance of clean air and clean water from firsthand 
experience.
  We know threats to our environment and public health do not 
discriminate, and the Representative concludes that she knows that, too 
often, it is the most important unrepresented and disadvantaged 
communities that are left behind.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support for the amendment from the gentlewoman from 
Michigan, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Brindisi). The gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, while I will not oppose this amendment, this 
section, in particular, is objectionable. But putting Agency decisions 
on their website sounds like a reasonable proposal.
  I am concerned about the timing of 60 days--that would be something 
that the Agency can do without a problem--and would have preferred that 
the Agency was invited to testify on sweeping an antiscience bill and 
its implications.

[[Page H136]]

  I do not intend to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his support of this 
amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and 
the overall bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 11 Offered by Miss Rice of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 37, lines 1 through 4, amend subsection (e) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section not more than $125,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2020 and 2021.
       ``(2) Special rule.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by paragraph (1), $25,000,000 are authorized to 
     be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2020 and 2021 for 
     grants under subsection (a) to pay for capital costs 
     associated with the implementation of eligible treatment 
     technologies during the period beginning on October 1, 2014, 
     and ending on the date of enactment of this section.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Miss Rice) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Chair, my amendment would expand the PFAS 
Infrastructure Grant Program by 25 percent and designate the increased 
funds for reimbursing water districts that have already started to 
address the PFAS water crisis.
  Like many communities across the Nation, Long Island, my district in 
New York, played a major role in the industrialization of America. 
Industrialization brought unparalleled economic growth, innovative new 
technologies, and transformed society as we know it.
  But with these great societal gains also came unintended 
consequences, like PFAS drinking water contamination.
  PFAS are toxic chemicals found in paint, cleaning products, 
packaging, and countless other products; and too often, they find their 
way into our drinking water systems.
  According to a May 2019 study by the New York Public Interest 
Research Group, Long Island has the most contaminated drinking water in 
New York State, and Nassau County has the highest number of water 
systems with detected emerging contaminants, including PFOA and PFOS.
  For years, water districts across the country have had to invest 
millions of their own dollars on technology to secure impacted wells 
and keep their residents safe. These costs have crushed our local 
communities, and that is why I have offered this amendment today.
  Communities that could not wait for Federal action and that quickly 
redirected resources to address this immediate health threat should not 
be punished. The Federal Government failed to address this threat for 
decades. The least we can do now is help reimburse the costs incurred 
by local water districts that acted when Congress failed to do so.
  Without this Federal reimbursement, costs could be unfairly 
transferred to residents in the form of higher water utility bills. We 
cannot let this happen. Residents should not be left with the bill when 
they had no responsibility for the crisis.
  I would like to thank my colleagues from Long Island, Representatives 
Peter King and  Tom Suozzi, for coleading this amendment with me, and 
our other bipartisan cosponsors, Representatives Fitzpatrick, Grijalva, 
Cisneros, and Stevens, as well.
  This is a commonsense bipartisan priority, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support my amendment to help these communities.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Pallone for supporting the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I will use the time that I have available.
  This amendment provides reimbursement funding for treatment 
technologies that were purchased up to 5 years ago. The program for 
which this amendment is offered is supposed to aid communities that 
have demonstrated problems and are economically disadvantaged and 
cannot afford the new technology because of the expense. That is why we 
have the program.
  This amendment suggests that community water systems that had the 
means and no expectation of Federal funding to pay for them get money 
for past work. It does not seem a fair use and diversion of taxpayer 
resources considering the expense of the technology that can currently 
meet the criteria of an eligible technology and the unknown nature of 
the communities that might need it.
  According to the EPA, there are few, if any, reverse osmosis 
treatment options that are economically viable on a mass scale that 
would remove all detectable amounts of PFAS.
  I understand the intent of the legislation, but our grant and loan 
programs are designed for communities that can't afford the expense. 
What my colleague is asking is that those communities that could and 
did make the investment, that they then be reimbursed, thus depriving 
communities that can't afford to do it an opportunity to obtain it.
  Mr. Chair, that is why we object to the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Miss Rice).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the committee print, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 19. RISK-COMMUNICATION STRATEGY.

       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall develop a risk-communication strategy to inform the 
     public about the hazards or potential hazards of 
     perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or categories 
     of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, by--
       (1) disseminating information about the risks or potential 
     risks posed by such substances or categories in land, air, 
     water (including drinking water), and products;
       (2) notifying the public about exposure pathways and 
     mitigation measures through outreach and educational 
     resources; and
       (3) consulting with States that have demonstrated effective 
     risk-communication strategies for best practices in 
     developing a national risk-communication strategy.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  I want to first thank Chairman Pallone, Chairman Tonko, and 
Congresswoman Dingell for this comprehensive package.
  We know PFAS-related substances remain in our bodies and environment 
for years, if not decades. Coupled with widespread consumer use and 
pollution, PFAS toxins could result in long-lasting public health 
problems.
  This legislation confronts PFAS contamination, spurs cleanup efforts, 
and sets a drinking water limit. It is critical for government agencies 
to inform the public of the risk posed by PFAS-related substances.
  My amendment would require the EPA to develop a national risk 
communication strategy to share the best

[[Page H137]]

available science about PFAS and its hazards, notify the public about 
risks and mitigation measures, and consult with States with effective 
statewide risk communication strategies of their own.
  In my home State of Maryland, PFAS has been identified in the water 
at eight DOD installations, tainting neighboring communities' local 
wells and seeping into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I am proud that 
Maryland is committed to PFAS transparency and research and is taking 
this issue seriously.
  Mr. Chair, there are some communities that are especially vulnerable 
to PFAS exposure, among them, firefighters at military installations. 
To stop the spread of fire at training sites, fire departments use a 
type of firefighting foam that contains PFAS-related substances.
  Over the course of their careers, these firefighters put themselves 
in harm's way, unaware of the toxicity of these chemicals and the 
health issues they can cause down the road. We owe these servicemen and 
-women an unrecoverable debt, and it is our duty to communicate to them 
the hazards that they were exposed to while risking their lives 
protecting the public.
  Whether it is former firefighters, military families living on bases, 
or the American people at large, the exchange of information between 
communities, risk assessors, and scientists is critical.
  As we continue to learn more about the full range of health problems 
linked to PFAS, we must also communicate that risk to the public. 
Sharing this risk, the knowledge of the risk, is an important step to 
give the public the resources they need to defend against PFAS 
contamination and the adverse health impacts it can cause.
  Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment and the underlying bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I do not oppose it.
  The Acting CHAIR (Miss Rice of New York). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding.
  I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. By requiring the EPA 
to develop a national risk communication strategy surrounding PFAS, the 
Federal Government will be better able to educate Americans and inform 
the public about the danger of PFAS chemicals.
  Experts believe that 99 percent of Americans have some level of PFAS 
in their blood, and most of them don't even know it.
  I thank the gentleman for his strong leadership in addressing the 
PFAS crisis head-on and thank him for offering this amendment.
  Incorporating this amendment will make the PFAS Action Act stronger 
and communicate the urgency to more people. I am proud to support this 
amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, we support the amendment because we think 
it is important to have a national risk communication strategy.
  We get troubled and we get confused in this debate when we are going 
to declare 7,866 chemicals toxic without doing the basic science. 
Hopefully, as we move this forward, I believe we are going to find some 
of the 7,866 that are safe, so when we do a risk advisory, we are going 
to be able to say: These are bad; these are okay.
  What the bill does is just say they are all bad, and we don't have 
any science to prove that. I think we are close on PFOA, and we are 
close to that on PFOS.
  Again, we could have moved in a bipartisan manner to address those. 
We didn't do that. But we would like, as the EPA considers this and 
informing the public, that they look at hazard identification, exposure 
assessment, and a risk characterization.
  So risk is a combination of time and exposure over a period of time. 
You can talk to toxicologists. That is what they do. That was the glue 
that held the TSCA bill together was the focus on using science.
  Again, as you have heard tonight and you will hear tomorrow, our 
problem is that we are rushing legislation before we are allowing the 
science to truly evaluate this, and we are classifying, currently, all 
7,866 as hazardous, which I don't believe they are.
  We have never, in the history of this Republic, under the Superfund 
Act, legislatively banned a chemical. We have always allowed scientific 
process.
  So I think the amendment is helpful in that it helps us be able to 
clarify when we do the scientific analysis what is safe, what is not.
  Informing the public is good. Transparency is great. We support the 
amendment. We appreciate the gentleman bringing it forward.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2045

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Pappas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. __. CLEAN WATER ACT EFFLUENT STANDARDS, PRETREATMENT 
                   STANDARDS, AND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PFAS.

       (a) Review and Regulation of Substances and Sources.--
       (1) Review.--
       (A) In general.--As soon as practicable, but not later than 
     September 30, 2021, and biennially thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a plan 
     under subsection (m) of section 304 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314) that contains the 
     results of a review, conducted in accordance with such 
     section, of the introduction or discharge of perfluoroalkyl 
     and polyfluoroalkyl substances from classes and categories of 
     point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works).
       (B) Inclusions.--The Administrator shall include in each 
     plan published pursuant to subparagraph (A)--
       (i) information on potential introduction or discharges of 
     perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances;
       (ii) any information gaps on such introduction or 
     discharges and the process by which the Administrator will 
     address such gaps;
       (iii) for each measurable perfluoroalkyl and 
     polyfluoroalkyl substance that is not on the list of toxic 
     pollutants described in section 307(a) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, a determination, in accordance with 
     the requirements of such section, whether or not to add the 
     substance to such list; and
       (iv) a determination, in accordance with the requirements 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, whether or not to 
     establish effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for 
     the introduction or discharge of each substance described in 
     clause (iii) that the Administrator determines under such 
     clause not to add to such list and for which the 
     Administrator has not developed such limitations or 
     standards.
       (2) Regulation.--Based on the results of each review 
     conducted under paragraph (1) and in accordance with the 
     requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the 
     Administrator shall--
       (A) in accordance with the plan published under paragraph 
     (1), as soon as practicable--
       (i) for each measurable perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
     substance that the Administrator determines under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(iii) to add to the list of toxic pollutants described 
     in section 307(a) of such Act, initiate the process for 
     adding the substance to such list; and
       (ii) for each measurable perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
     substance that the Administrator determines under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(iv) to establish effluent limitations and pretreatment 
     standards, establish such effluent limitations and 
     pretreatment standards (which limitations and standards may 
     be established by substance or by class or category of 
     substances); and
       (B) not later than 2 years after the date on which each 
     plan is published under paragraph (1), publish human health 
     water quality criteria for measurable perfluoroalkyl and 
     polyfluoroalkyl substances and classes and categories of 
     perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances for which the 
     Administrator has not published such criteria.
       (b) Deadlines for Covered Perfluoroalkyl Substances.--

[[Page H138]]

       (1) Water quality criteria.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator 
     shall publish in the Federal Register human health water 
     quality criteria for each covered perfluoroalkyl substance.
       (2) Effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for 
     priority industry categories.--As soon as practicable, but 
     not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this 
     section, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal 
     Register a final rule establishing, for each priority 
     industry category, effluent limitations and pretreatment 
     standards for the introduction or discharge of each covered 
     perfluoroalkyl substance.
       (c) Notification.--The Administrator shall notify the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate of each publication made under 
     this section.
       (d) Implementation Assistance for Publicly Owned Treatment 
     Works.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall award grants, in 
     amounts not to exceed $100,000, to owners and operators of 
     publicly owned treatment works, to be used for the 
     implementation of a pretreatment standard developed by the 
     Administrator for a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl 
     substance.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this 
     subsection $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 
     2025, to remain available until expended.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Covered perfluoroalkyl substance.--The term ``covered 
     perfluoroalkyl substance'' means perfluorooctanoic acid, 
     perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, or a salt associated with 
     perfluorooctanoic acid or perfluorooctane sulfonic acid.
       (3) Effluent limitation.--The term ``effluent limitation'' 
     means an effluent limitation under section 301(b) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311).
       (4) Introduction.--The term ``introduction'' means the 
     introduction of pollutants into treatment works, as described 
     in section 307(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1317).
       (5) Measurable.--The term ``measurable'' means, with 
     respect to a chemical substance or class or category of 
     chemical substances, capable of being measured using--
       (A) test procedures established under section 304(h) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314);
       (B) applicable protocols and methodologies required 
     pursuant to section 4(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 2603); or
       (C) any other analytical method developed by the 
     Administrator for detecting pollutants, as such term is 
     defined in section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1362).
       (6) Pretreatment standard.--The term ``pretreatment 
     standard'' means a pretreatment standard under section 307(b) 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1317).
       (7) Priority industry category.--The term ``priority 
     industry category'' means the following point source 
     categories:
       (A) Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers, as 
     identified in part 414 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (B) Pulp, paper, and paperboard, as identified in part 430 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (C) Textile mills, as identified in part 410 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       (8) Treatment works.--The term ``treatment works'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 212 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292).
       (9) Water quality criteria.--The term ``water quality 
     criteria'' means criteria for water quality under section 
     304(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1314).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, for decades, Americans have been exposed to toxic PFAS 
chemicals and there are not sufficient protections in place to 
safeguard our communities, our drinking water, and our environment. 
Americans are getting sick from these forever chemicals that are known 
to cause cancer, immune disorders, and thyroid problems, among other 
serious health conditions.
  I represent so many tireless advocates and concerned citizens in New 
Hampshire who have identified this threat in their own communities and 
raised our collective consciousness about the dangers of PFAS.
  I have heard about PFAS from too many servicemembers and their 
families who were exposed to high concentrations in drinking water on a 
base.
  I have heard about it from residents who have had their private wells 
contaminated by a manufacturing plant.
  I have heard about it from families who live near a landfill where 
PFAS-laden waste was dumped, an area that also has some of the Nation's 
highest cancer rates.
  We must recognize that we are only having this conversation today 
because of advocates like them across the country who have sounded the 
alarm. It is about time we implement policies that address the 
widespread contamination that exists in every one of our districts.
  We would be negligent if we fail to do so.
  I am offering an important, bipartisan amendment to this legislation 
that is based on a bill that I have filed, the Clean Water Standards 
for PFAS Act. If we want to truly protect the public from PFAS, we must 
stop pollution which continues today. We must prevent industry and 
other polluters from dumping PFAS into rivers, streams, and other 
bodies of water, and further contaminating the environment.
  This amendment calls on the EPA to set and enforce proactive limits 
for PFAS discharge. It also requires EPA to issue pretreatment 
standards for polluters who discharge PFAS directly to water treatment 
facilities. This amendment also creates a grant program to provide 
assistance to treatment facilities, ensuring that municipalities have 
the resources to meet these requirements that will help keep our 
communities safe.
  My constituents deserve clean water. There is nothing more important 
than the health and safety of our communities, and we must work 
together to stop PFAS from getting into the environment and poisoning 
our drinking water.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor 
of this amendment. And I want to thank all of those who have stepped 
forward to address this issue, including the bipartisan Congressional 
PFAS Task Force as well as the coleads of this particular amendment, 
Representatives Rouda, Delgado, Fitzpatrick, Kuster, Cisneros, and 
Kildee.
  I really appreciate the discussion here today. It is about time that 
we go beyond action plans and actually implement some policies that are 
going to affect people's lives in a positive manner back home. I urge 
adoption of this amendment and the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I understand this reflects an effort to improve this 
proposal from when we considered it under the National Defense 
Authorization Act, but I don't know what has changed or what it means 
since there has been no hearing or a markup record for me to consult to 
better appreciate this proposal or its impacts.
  There are 7,866 per- and polyfluorinated compounds listed on EPA's 
PFAS master list, an uninformed policy could carry massive unintended 
consequences on the liability and regulatory forms.
  As I read it, this amendment continues an antiscience mindset that 
seeks to regulate first, without adequate knowledge or understanding of 
the per- and polyfluorinated compound situation and then say, okay, we 
will figure it out later.
  This amendment covers PFAS substances that may not necessarily be 
what chemicals the industry is currently using, and simultaneously 
mandates creating new standards for every measurable PFAS chemical 
substance. This means EPA will be forced to divert resources to chase 
those PFAS that are no longer in use and may not be necessary.
  The amendment requires EPA to regulate PFAS compounds through the 
Clean Water Act without validated analytical methods for detention in 
wastewater; without established science or human and environmental 
impacts to determine appropriate and

[[Page H139]]

legally, scientifically defensible standards; and without an 
understanding of how best to treat and remove pollutants from 
wastewater, even if there was a validated method for detection.
  The deadline in this amendment will likely make EPA's work to 
implement it vulnerable to a legal challenge, delaying any real benefit 
that the proponents want from it, and enriching the trial bar in the 
process.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Hampshire will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Plaskett

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the committee print, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 19. ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES FOR ADDRESSING EMERGING 
                   CONTAMINANTS, WITH A FOCUS ON PERFLUOROALKYL 
                   AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES.

       Section 1452(t) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300j-12) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Assistance to territories.--Of the amounts made 
     available under this subsection, the Administrator may use 
     funds to provide grants to the Virgin Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, 
     and Guam for the purpose of addressing emerging contaminants, 
     with a focus on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
     substances.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentlewoman 
from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.
  This amendment is simply a correction. It would make the United 
States territories eligible for additional Safe Drinking Water Act 
funding authorized to address emerging contaminants like PFAS.
  Today, we are discussing PFAS, toxic chemicals that have posed 
adverse public health risks and have persisted because they could not 
break down. Their carbon fluoride bond is the strongest bond in nature, 
so PFAS contamination is continuing to be found all across the country: 
in the water, air, and soil. It has been extraordinarily widespread.
  EPA has acknowledged that millions of people in this country receive 
drinking water with PFAS over the health advisory limit, and the United 
States territories have been no exception to this.
  It has been a serious issue for communities that have been impacted, 
and more and more communities will be known to be impacted. A lot of 
those who have detected it are taking actions, which are expensive, to 
remove it from the drinking water.
  That is why this bill, as reported out of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and under the recent NDAA, provides new grant funding to 
assist water utilities struggling with this issue, contamination in the 
drinking water and others.
  However, as currently written, this grant funding has only been made 
available to States through the Drinking Water Act's State Revolving 
Fund program, which does include the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico, as States, but not other U.S. territories, which are generally 
provided with a separate reservation of overall program funding 
annually.
  My amendment simply corrects this new program to permit the EPA to 
provide such grants to these American territories, including my 
district in the U.S. Virgin Islands, to assist their water utilities 
with PFAS treatment if it is found.
  These territories have some of the most severe needs for Federal 
assistance in the area of clean water and drinking water-related 
infrastructure, and these needs have historically tended to be woefully 
underfunded.
  They often have received less on a per capita basis than a number of 
similarly situated States. If Congress is to assist American 
communities with the removal of toxic PFAS from drinking water, it is 
only fair to include all American territories as eligible to receive 
this assistance.
  I urge approval of my amendment as simply a matter of fairness. I 
would also take this opportunity to gently remind my colleagues to 
please consider Americans in territories in developing legislation 
intended to assist all Americans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Chair, in closing, I would like to just 
acknowledge to the Chair the support of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, particularly my good friend, Mr. Tonko from New York, as 
well as Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, for introducing this legislation 
and all of the staff that has worked on this.
  I urge adoption of this amendment as part of fairness to all 
Americans who face this issue, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, we all support the territories having funding to address 
their drinking water needs. The biggest concern is, the territories 
really operate from a different system because they don't have the loan 
program. They don't really have the money to pay back the loan program. 
So there is a system by which grant funding is awarded to the 
territories to make up this need.
  So the concern is that the amendment may disenfranchise the States 
from taking from the revolving fund program, when the territories, 
historically, because they don't use that, they get more grant money. 
So that is why we oppose it. We think it is going to impact the States' 
ability to apply for these funds, and we think that the territories 
have a different method of grant funding to meet their qualities and 
needs.
  I request a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Brindisi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amend section 15(a) to read as follows:
       (a) Listing.--
       (1) Initial listing.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall issue a final rule 
     adding perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts, and 
     perfluoroactanesulfonic acid and its salts, to the list of 
     hazardous air pollutants under section 112(b) of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)).
       (2) Additional listings.--Not later than 5 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall determine whether to 
     issue, in accordance with section 112 of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7412), any final rules adding perfluoroalkyl and 
     polyfluoroalkyl substances, other than those perfluoroalkyl 
     and polyfluoroalkyl substances listed pursuant to paragraph 
     (1), to the list of hazardous air pollutants under section 
     112(b) of such Act.
       In section 15(b), strike ``the final rule'' and insert 
     ``any final rule''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Brindisi) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

[[Page H140]]

  

  Mr. BRINDISI. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleagues from across the aisle, Mr. 
Reed from New York and Mr. Gallagher from Wisconsin, for their support 
of this amendment.
  Support for clean air and protecting public health are not Democratic 
or Republican values. They are American values, and I am glad to work 
with my colleagues on this commonsense amendment.
  My amendment is straightforward. First, it requires immediate action 
on the most dangerous types of PFAS, including PFOA, which has been 
found at elevated levels in drinking water in many communities, 
including Hoosick Falls in upstate New York.
  For these obsolete chemistries, EPA would be required to swiftly list 
these and hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. While we 
take action on the chemicals of greatest concern, we will also give the 
EPA time for a thoughtful, science-based process that acknowledges the 
differences across PFAS chemicals.
  Our amendment will give the EPA 5 years to establish risk-based 
standards that protect human health and the environment for the many 
other types of PFAS chemicals.
  This will bring the Clean Air Act provisions into line with the 
CERCLA provisions in this bill. We need to be thoughtful in this 
process. Protecting public health will make sure that our decisions are 
informed by the best science available.
  This amendment is a commonsense compromise that strikes that balance. 
I, again, thank Congresswoman Dingell and Chairman Pallone, as well as 
Chairman Tonko for their work on this important legislation, and their 
willingness to work with me on our amendment.
  I thank Congresswoman Stevens for her work raising the issue of air 
contamination when it comes to PFAS chemicals.
  I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I again urge adoption of my amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good attempt to try to bring some 
sense to this bill, and I appreciate my colleague's attempt.
  What the amendment does is it really creates unachievable 
expectations. There are a lot of problems with the amendment, but one 
is that you are asking for a final rule within 100 days, especially if 
it is not proposed, which is going to set up a deadline suit.
  I have dealt with deadline suits. You got a deadline, and they can't 
meet it, then the agency gets sued.
  Why do we pay utilities to hold nuclear waste? Because they have 
enacted a deadline suit because we say we are going to take their 
waste, the Federal Government. We didn't take their waste, and now we 
have to pay the utilities to hold the waste that we were supposed to 
take.
  That is one issue that I have a concern.
  Mr. Chairman, 7,866 compounds, Clean Air Act aspects, and you are 
going to have, as I used numerous times during the National Defense 
Authorization Act debate, as I have used on the rule debate, these 
7,866 different aspects of PFAS we are coming to the floor not using 
science, not using due diligence, but using political science to say 
ban it.
  Our argument has always been to let's do the science. The problem is, 
science takes a long time, and the political emotion of this debate 
just can't wait.
  We have addressed a lot of these concerns everybody raised throughout 
the night through the enacted National Defense Authorization Act and by 
the omnibus bill. But if you look at the F-16 and the component parts, 
and we could have an automobile in the new electric vehicle era, new 
battery technology, medical devices, they are all going to have some 
type of per- or polyfluorinated compounds.
  This amendment with the bill really is a de facto ban on the use of 
all per- and polyfluorinated compounds, or it is going to scare the 
producers of this, that they don't want to get caught in a litigation 
trap, so they are just not going to produce it.
  We have talked about firefighting foam quite a bit tonight. It is 
really a great debate because we do think there is some bipartisan 
nature that we can get to on that chemical.
  If you are in a nuclear sub underneath the Arctic icecap and a fire 
happens on the sub, do you want the second-best firefighting foam? I 
mean, really, do you? The second-best means it takes more time, and it 
takes more water. I don't think you do. But this is where we stand.
  The amendment creates both an unrealistic burden and a litigation 
problem, and the EPA cannot possibly fulfill our requirement to review 
all PFAS for inclusion in the clean air policy in 5 years. We only have 
29 methods of determining per- and polyfluorinated compounds right now, 
just 29. There are 7,866, and the amendment says to do it in 5 years.
  I wish it could be done. I have been here a long time. Government 
moves slowly. When we throw all these sites into the Superfund, people 
are going to be hollering about it for 40 years. I read the list 
earlier of all these Superfund sites that haven't been remediated. Now, 
we are just going to expand that. Pull up the map of the country and 
all those red States, either that is going to be where all the 
Superfund sites are or that is where all the class action lawsuits are 
going to be filed in those States to take down those companies that are 
providing either safe medical devices or equipment for our career and 
best airplanes and technologies.
  Again, I want to applaud my colleague. I think this is something we 
could have done. We actually were talking about this in a compromise 
provision. We couldn't get there because of other issues. It is a 
valiant attempt. My friend is in the majority, and it is going to pass. 
Unfortunately, the Senate is not going to take up this bill, and the 
President already has a veto message on the bill. So it will be teed up 
for the next Congress, and I wish the gentleman luck.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Golden). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Brindisi).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Brindisi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment as the designee 
of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kim).
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 36, line 12, insert ``, after providing an opportunity 
     for public comment,'' after ``the Administrator''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Brindisi) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Congressman Kim, for writing this 
amendment, and I rise on his behalf to offer it tonight.
  This amendment is straightforward. It ensures that the list of 
technologies that are most effective in removing PFAS from drinking 
water are made public and available for public comment prior to final 
publication. This will allow healthy debate and discussion by 
scientific experts, universities, industry, and the public to help 
understand the most effective means of cleanup. By allowing the public 
to see this information, we can help ensure the EPA is putting our best 
ideas and methods toward cleaning up these chemicals and making our 
drinking water safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H141]]

  

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but 
I do not plan to object to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no objection to having EPA obtaining technical 
input on technologies that are effective in removing PFAS from drinking 
water. I am concerned how formal a process the amendment seeks to 
impose. I was going to ask questions of Mr. Kim or Mr. Pallone. They 
are not here, and that is fine.
  The amendment only calls for public comment, but a full-blown notice 
and opportunity for public comment is an enormously expensive and time-
consuming process for any agency, including the EPA. If the focus of 
the bill is to meet the timelines it imposes and not hold up 
grantmaking for a public comment process to play out, I think this 
amendment needs to be rethought a bit to get at the author's intent 
without tripping up EPA from executing the program.
  I will not oppose this amendment because I know there are larger 
problems with this bill that will prevent it from becoming law, but I 
want to highlight that this is an acceptable amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Axne). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Brindisi).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Golden

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 47, after line 15, insert the following new subsection 
     (and redesignate the subsequent subsection accordingly):
       (b) Annual Report.--Not later than two years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the head of the U.S. Fire 
     Administration, shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     effectiveness of the guidance issued under subsection (a). 
     Such report shall include recommendations for congressional 
     actions that the Administrator determines appropriate to 
     assist efforts to reduce exposure to PFAS by firefighters and 
     the other persons described in subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Golden) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 
535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019.
  First, I thank Chairman Pallone, Congresswoman Dingell, and the 
Energy and Commerce Committee for bringing this bill to the floor 
today. We all know that PFAS contamination is a national issue that has 
devastated communities across the country.
  As of October 2019, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection 
has more than 30,000 records for PFAS at 244 locations across the State 
of Maine. In my district, areas surrounding the former Loring Air Force 
Base, Houlton International Airport, Bangor International Airport, the 
Navy VLF Radio Station in Cutler, and the Bog Brook military training 
site in Gilead are known to be contaminated with PFAS compounds.
  Groundwater, surface water, soil, and sediment samples collected from 
these sites identified the presence of these chemicals, posing a major 
risk to public health and safety.
  We also know that emergency response teams are frequently exposed to 
PFAS in firefighting foams as they work to keep communities safe. Given 
my State still relies on not only career firefighters but a tremendous 
amount of volunteer firefighters, the threat of PFAS contamination and 
the resulting health risks is something I take seriously.
  That is why I am pleased to see that the bill we are debating today 
includes a provision that would require the EPA Administrator, with the 
U.S. Fire Administration, to issue guidance on minimizing the use of 
firefighting foam and related equipment containing any PFAS by 
firefighters and other first responders.
  However, I think it is important for Congress and the public to know 
just how effective this provision will be on the long-term health of 
our first responders. That is why I am offering an amendment that would 
require the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the U.S. Fire 
Administration, to brief Congress on the effectiveness of the guidance 
they are providing, to include recommendations for congressional 
actions that the Administrator determines appropriate to assist efforts 
to reduce exposure to PFAS by firefighters and other first responders.
  This is a commonsense amendment to ensure that the Federal Government 
follows through on its commitment to protect the men and women who 
enter into harm's way to keep our communities safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Brindisi). The gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Maine's problem with 
the airports. Fortunately, we have exempted airports from Superfund 
liability, and there is not going to be an ability for the gentleman's 
sites to get cleaned up.
  Other than that, based upon this amendment, we think the basic 
amendment is unnecessary. There is no objection to having EPA report 
annually on firefighter foam guidance. This amendment, though, does not 
have an end to annual reporting, and firefighting foam with fluorine is 
supposed to be phased out in 3 years under the military specs. Maybe 
moving forward, there could be a deadline.
  In addition, the amendment asks for recommendations to Congress to 
reduce exposure to PFAS and firefighting foam. This assumes that any 
remaining foam is hazardous, and meaningful safe is not examined, only 
exposure, a very nonscientific way to address the problem.
  Plus, I would prefer that there be some discussion, considering who 
is writing the report. The foam effect in this is discussed. Let's not 
add incomplete reporting. An underlying bill places enough unnecessary 
burdens on the public.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2115


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mrs. Axne

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in part B of House Report 116-366.
  Mrs. AXNE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 37, line 4, strike ``2021'' and insert ``2024''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentlewoman 
from Iowa (Mrs. Axne) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Iowa.


         Modification to Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mrs. Axne

  Mrs. AXNE. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
modified in the form I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to Amendment to Rules Committee Print 116-45

                      Offered By Mrs. Axne of Iowa

       The amendment is modified to read as follows:

[[Page H142]]

       Page 37, beginning on line 1, amend subsection (e) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section not more than--
       ``(A) $125,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 and 2021; 
     and
       ``(B) $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 
     2024.
       ``(2) Special rule.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by paragraph (1), $25,000,000 are authorized to 
     be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2020 and 2021 for 
     grants under subsection (a) to pay for capital costs 
     associated with the implementation of eligible treatment 
     technologies during the period beginning on October 1, 2014, 
     and ending on the date of enactment of this section.
  Mrs. AXNE (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the original request of the 
gentlewoman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
  The gentlewoman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. AXNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard from many parents in my district worried 
about PFAS contamination in their drinking water. PFAS are manmade 
chemicals that can pose serious health risks and are of great concern 
to my constituents.
  In large quantities, PFAS are dangerous and deadly to human health, 
and these forever chemicals are going to take a lot of work and 
innovation to clean up. These chemicals have been linked to cancer, 
effects on the immune system, and impaired child development.
  While PFAS chemicals have not been found in the water supply in my 
district, there is a known contamination site. Our community has 
stepped up and is working together through a PFAS Working Group to 
address this contamination and conduct further testing, but it is past 
time that the Federal Government steps in, stops the production of 
these dangerous chemicals, requires cleanup, and provides resources to 
ensure that our communities aren't left to fight this alone.
  Our public water utilities provide a critical service to our 
communities by ensuring families have safe and clean drinking water. 
However, without proper support, many water utilities won't be able to 
afford the necessary upgrades or would be forced to put the costs back 
on the backs of their community.
  I am glad that this legislation creates a grant program to provide 
funding for water utilities to upgrade their drinking water systems in 
order to effectively remove PFAS. The PFAS Infrastructure Grant Program 
will ensure utilities have the resources they need to protect our water 
systems without burdening the communities they serve with an 
unaffordable expense.
  However, as the bill is written now, the PFAS Infrastructure Grant 
Program would only be authorized for 2 years. Our communities need more 
flexibility and time when deciding the best way to upgrade their water 
infrastructure and to combat PFAS.
  My amendment would extend the PFAS Infrastructure Grant Program for 
an additional 3 years, allowing water utilities time to properly 
address their needs, test their water, and request funding, as 
necessary.
  Additionally, my amendment would increase the funding available by 
$300 million over that 3-year period. By more than doubling the current 
authorized amount, my amendment would ensure there are enough funds 
available so utilities can afford these necessary upgrades without 
negatively impacting the critical work that they do.
  My State of Iowa also has many rural drinking water systems that 
don't have the scale to afford massive infrastructure costs. We see, 
time and time again, that smaller water systems are unable to remove 
hazardous and dangerous materials simply because of cost barriers. I am 
pleased that the underlying bill prioritizes small drinking water 
systems, and my amendment ensures the program has enough funding so no 
community is left behind.
  This legislation is an important step to ensure Iowa families have 
access to safe drinking water without these harmful PFAS chemicals. My 
amendment strengthens the PFAS Infrastructure Grant Program, and I urge 
a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. AXNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of the 
amendment. I am glad there is bipartisan support to ensure that our 
communities have the drinking water and resources they need to protect 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague. I rose in 
opposition, just so she understands that I will be speaking in 
opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the kind words.
  Mr. Chair, I wish she would have been here when the Rice amendment 
was on the floor, which has been passed and added to the bill, which 
would now allow the rich communities that have already paid for their 
modifications at great expense to be able to dip back into these funds 
at the expense of rural communities. That was an amendment we passed 
earlier.
  Mr. Chair, under this legislation, EPA is supposed to issue a 
national primary drinking water standard for PFAS, but PFOA and PFOS at 
a minimum. Once this is done, communities that are disadvantaged--and I 
am from rural Illinois, 33 counties--one, assistance for installing 
technology are eligible for the drinking water State-revolving loan 
programs.
  This amendment creates a double-dipping opportunity for communities 
when the main focus of the Safe Drinking Water Act State revolving fund 
is to help struggling systems meet the mandate it imposes to protect 
public health.
  More practically, because of budget allocations that the House 
appropriators are supposed to operate under, increased capitalization 
grants will suffer. Money, to the tune of $75 million, will be diverted 
to this particular PFAS grant program at the expense of the State 
revolving fund.
  Communities, especially rural communities, not only with PFAS but 
other compliance and health problems as well, could and will likely be 
a loser, so that is why I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Axne).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Dingell) having assumed the chair, Mr. Brindisi, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________