Congressional Record, Volume 166 Issue 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)

[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.

____________________