[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3770-H3791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PFAS ACTION ACT OF 2021

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 535, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 2467) 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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 535, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 117-10, modified by the amendment printed in part A of 
House Report 117-95, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered 
read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2467

       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 2021''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

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. 12. Investigation of prevention of contamination by GenX.
Sec. 13. Disclosure of introductions of PFAS.
Sec. 14. Household well water testing website.
Sec. 15. Risk-communication strategy.
Sec. 16. Assistance to Territories for addressing emerging 
              contaminants, with a focus on perfluoroalkyl and 
              polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Sec. 17. Clean Water Act effluent limitations guidelines and standards 
              and water quality criteria for 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.
       (d) 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.
       (e) Review.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report containing a 
     review of actions by the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     clean up contamination of the substances designated pursuant 
     to subsection (a).
       (2) Matters included.-- The report under paragraph (1) 
     shall include an assessment of cleanup progress and 
     effectiveness, including the following:
       (A) The number of sites where the Environmental Protection 
     Agency has acted to remediate contamination of the substances 
     designated pursuant to subsection (a).
       (B) Which types of chemicals relating to such substances 
     were present at each site and the extent to which each site 
     was contaminated.
       (C) An analysis of discrepancies in cleanup between Federal 
     and non-Federal contamination sites.
       (D) Any other elements the Administrator may determine 
     necessary.
       (3) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means the following:
       (A) The Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) The Committee on the Environment and Public Works of 
     the Senate.

     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.''.

[[Page H3771]]

  


     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) PFAS.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     this subsection does not apply to any chemical substance that 
     is a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance.
       ``(B) Drugs and devices.--Paragraph (3) applies to a 
     chemical substance that is a perfluoroalkyl or 
     polyfluoroalkyl substance which is manufactured or processed, 
     or proposed to be manufactured or processed, solely for 
     purposes of--
       ``(i) scientific experimentation or analysis with respect 
     to a drug or device (as such terms are defined in section 301 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or personal 
     protective equipment (as such term is defined in section 
     20005 of the CARES Act); or
       ``(ii) chemical research on, or analysis of, such a 
     chemical substance for the development of a drug or device 
     (as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or personal protective 
     equipment (as such term is defined in section 20005 of the 
     CARES Act).''; 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--
       ``(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 one 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

[[Page H3772]]

     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 meet all applicable standards, and all 
     applicable health advisories published pursuant to section 
     1412(b)(1)(F), for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
     substances.
       ``(c) List of Eligible Treatment Technologies.--Not later 
     than 150 days after the date of enactment of this section, 
     and every 2 years thereafter, the Administrator shall publish 
     a list of treatment technologies that the Administrator 
     determines are the most effective at removing perfluoroalkyl 
     and polyfluoroalkyl substances from drinking water.
       ``(d) Priority for Funding.--In awarding grants under this 
     section, the Administrator shall prioritize an affected 
     community water system that--
       ``(1) serves a disadvantaged community;
       ``(2) will provide at least a 10-percent cost share for the 
     cost of implementing an eligible treatment technology;
       ``(3) demonstrates the capacity to maintain the eligible 
     treatment technology to be implemented using the grant; or
       ``(4) is located within an area with respect to which the 
     Administrator has published a determination under the first 
     sentence of section 1424(e) relating to an aquifer that is 
     the sole or principal drinking water source for the area.
       ``(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.--
       ``(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 2022 and 2023; 
     and
       ``(B) $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 
     2026.
       ``(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 2022 and 2023 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.
       ``(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) Disproportionately exposed community.--The term 
     `disproportionately exposed community' means a community in 
     which climate change, pollution, or environmental destruction 
     have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, 
     environmental, and economic injustices by disproportionately 
     affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant 
     communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural 
     communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the 
     elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, or youth.
       ``(4) Eligible treatment technology.--The term `eligible 
     treatment technology' means a treatment technology included 
     on the list published under subsection (c).
       ``(5) PFAS.--The term `PFAS' means a perfluoroalkyl or 
     polyfluoroalkyl substance with at least one fully fluorinated 
     carbon atom, including the chemical GenX.''.

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

       (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.
       (b) Sources Categories.--Not later than 365 days after any 
     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, cooking 
     utensil, carpet, or rug, clothing, or upholstered furniture, 
     or a stain resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant 
     coating not subject to requirements under section 409 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to meet in order to be 
     labeled with a Safer Choice label, including a requirement 
     that any such pot, pan, cooking utensil, carpet, rug, 
     clothing, or upholstered furniture, or stain resistant, water 
     resistant, or grease resistant coating does not contain any 
     PFAS; or
       (2) establish a voluntary label that is available to be 
     used by any manufacturer of any pot, pan, cooking utensil, 
     carpet, rug, clothing, or upholstered furniture, or stain 
     resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant coating not 
     subject to requirements under section 409 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 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 1 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, Federal Aviation Administration, and 
     other relevant Federal departments or agencies and 
     representatives of State and local building and fire code 
     enforcement jurisdictions, shall issue guidance on minimizing 
     the use of, or contact with, 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) Annual Report.--Not later than 2 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).
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 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 report to Congress on the efforts of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and other relevant Federal 
     departments and agencies to identify viable alternatives to 
     firefighting foam and other related equipment containing any 
     PFAS.
       (d) 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.

     SEC. 12. 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.

     SEC. 13. 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

[[Page H3773]]

       (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).

     SEC. 14. HOUSEHOLD WELL WATER TESTING WEBSITE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 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 2022.

     SEC. 15. 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.

     SEC. 16. 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.''.

     SEC. 17. CLEAN WATER ACT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND 
                   STANDARDS AND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PFAS.

       (a) Deadlines.--
       (1) Water quality criteria.--Not later than 3 years after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator 
     shall publish in the Federal Register human health water 
     quality criteria under section 304(a)(1) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314) for each measurable 
     perfluoroalkyl substance, polyfluoroalkyl substance, and 
     class of such substances.
       (2) Effluent limitations guidelines and 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 guidelines and 
     standards, in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, for the discharge (including a discharge into a 
     publicly owned treatment works) of each measurable 
     perfluoroalkyl substance, polyfluoroalkyl substance, and 
     class of such substances.
       (b) 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.
       (c) Implementation Assistance for Publicly Owned Treatment 
     Works.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall award grants to 
     owners and operators of publicly owned treatment works, to be 
     used to implement effluent limitations guidelines and 
     standards developed by the Administrator for a perfluoroalkyl 
     substance, polyfluoroalkyl substance, or class of such 
     substances.
       (2) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the administrator to carry out this 
     subsection $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 
     2026, to remain available until expended.
       (d) No Increased Bonding Authority.--Amounts awarded to an 
     owner or operator of a publicly owned treatment works 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.
       Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Effluent limitation.--The tern ``effluent limitation'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 502 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362).
       (3) Measurable.--The term ``measurable'' means, with 
     respect to a chemical substance or class of chemical 
     substances, capable of being measured using test procedures 
     established under section 304(h) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314).
       (4) Perfluoroalkyl substance.--The term ``perfluoroalkyl 
     substance'' means a chemical of which all of the carbon atoms 
     are fully fluorinated carbon atoms.
       (5) Polyfluoroalkyl substance.--The term ``polyfluoroalkyl 
     substance'' means a chemical containing at least one fully 
     fluorinated carbon atom and at least one carbon atom that is 
     not a fully fluorinated carbon atom.
       (6) Priorit 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 (or successor regulations).
       (B) Pulp, paper, and paperboard, as identified in part 430 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor 
     regulations).
       (C) Textile mills, as identified in part 410 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
       (D) Electroplating, as identified in part 413 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
       (E) Metal finishing, as identified in part 433 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
       (F) Leather tanning and finishing, as identified in part 
     425 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor 
     regulations).
       (G) Paint formulating, as identified in part 446 of title 
     40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
       (H) Electrical and electronic components, as identified in 
     part 469 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or 
     successor regulations).
       (I) Plastics molding and forming, as identified in part 463 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor 
     regulations).
       (7) 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, is debatable for 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act of 
2021.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021, is a 
comprehensive package of strategies to regulate PFAS chemicals, clean 
up contamination, and protect public health. I am proud to support this 
bipartisan bill which will deliver the tools communities across the 
country need to get PFAS out of our environment and out of the pathways 
that lead to our bodies.
  PFAS are an urgent public health threat. They are toxic, persistent, 
and

[[Page H3774]]

being found in the environment across the country.
  Just how common are they?
  A recent report from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry concluded that ``Most people in the United States have been 
exposed to PFAS and have PFAS in their blood.'' That finding is pretty 
astounding and incredibly concerning to families across the Nation.
  After all, 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.
  Industry has known about these dangers for decades, but we still have 
no Federal protections from PFAS in drinking water, no limits on PFAS 
air emissions, no Federal cleanup requirements on PFAS sites, and no 
limits on dumping PFAS into our waterways. We don't even have labeling 
of PFAS ingredients to allow consumers to protect themselves.
  Right now, the Environmental Protection Agency is playing catch-up 
after 4 years of little action by the Trump administration, but this 
bill will help EPA tackle the complex challenge of PFAS by taking 
direct action on the two most studied PFAS, PFOS and PFOA, right away, 
while setting a reasonable timeline to study and evaluate other PFAS. 
This approach puts the focus on following the science by tailoring 
testing to relevant subgroups of PFAS and focusing regulation on the 
riskiest chemicals.
  Mr. Speaker, over a decade ago, PFOA and PFOS were voluntarily phased 
out by industry. While no longer in use, they continue to threaten 
public health because of widespread environmental contamination. This 
bill will drive environmental cleanups of that contamination and 
drinking water treatment, addressing the threat of PFOA and PFOS to 
communities across the country.
  Now, all other PFAS will be tested as appropriate. And where that 
testing reveals risk, this bill will ensure that EPA takes timely 
action to prevent and mitigate environmental contamination.
  In the meantime, this bill will pause the introduction of untested 
new PFAS while providing guidance and labels to help first responders 
and consumers limit their risk.
  Mr. Speaker, the longer we delay action on PFAS, the worse the 
problem becomes. It is time for Congress to act and use every tool 
available to stop the flow of PFAS pollution into our environment and 
into our bodies.
  A version of this bill was passed overwhelmingly last Congress with 
significant bipartisan support. It is championed--and I can't 
underestimate how much Representatives Dingell and Upton of Michigan 
have worked on this bill. I commend them for their continued 
leadership.
  I also thank Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman 
Tonko and Ranking Member McKinley for their continued support.
  We can't delay any longer. We should pass this bipartisan legislation 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the PFAS Action Act so that we can 
finally take action on these dangerous forever chemicals.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act, 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''
  The decision to oppose H.R. 2467 was not easy, but this version is 
not the right approach.
  PFAS contamination is a serious problem in many congressional 
districts. That is true for me, too. My district has PFOA and PFOS 
contamination at Fairchild Air Force Base in Airway Heights, 
Washington, and I very much want it cleaned up.
  I have problems, though, with H.R. 2467's overwhelming, heavy-handed, 
and unscientific approach. I am struggling with why this aggressive 
expansion of Federal power and spending is the best answer that the 
people's House can provide.
  What does this massive proposal mean, and are we ready to go this 
far?
  I cannot stress this enough: what we are addressing today is not 
about one, two, or just a handful of legacy chemicals. PFAS are, 
instead, an enormous and diverse class of manmade chemicals. EPA's 
``Master List of PFAS Substances'' contains more than 9,000 distinct 
chemicals, and the definition in this bill would apply to every one of 
those 9,252 chemicals and their uses.
  Since the late fall of 2020, Congress has enacted 31 separate 
provisions to address PFAS. Congress has compelled cleanup of PFAS at 
military installations, banned certain uses of PFAS chemicals in 
products, pushed cooperative agreements for cleanups with States, and 
authorized $500 million for removing emerging contaminants, especially 
PFAS, from drinking water.
  Similarly, EPA has advanced nine major regulatory efforts for PFOA, 
PFOS, and some of the other PFAS chemicals.
  EPA Administrator Regan also has commissioned a multiyear review 
process at EPA to consider any necessary modifications and to identify 
new strategies and priorities related to PFAS.
  I want strong scientific backing for anything that we do to address 
PFAS chemicals. I am concerned that the mandates in the PFAS Action Act 
will frustrate EPA's existing science-based plans. This bill instead 
will cement policy choices with long-range implications. It will 
overwhelm EPA's existing resources to tackle environmental and public 
health challenges beyond PFAS.
  The PFAS Action Act is not a measured approach. It prejudges 
outcomes, showing little regard for objective science, risk assessment, 
transparency, and public input.
  For example, the bill requires EPA to make regulatory determinations 
within 5 years on 9,250 PFAS chemicals--and without public 
participation.
  This impossible deadline is a lawsuit waiting to happen. It requires 
every manufacturer and processor to conduct comprehensive testing on 
all 9,252 PFAS. This will overwhelm existing domestic laboratory 
capacity to focus on any other scientific or public health matter.
  Like it or not, some PFAS chemicals have specific properties that 
aren't easily addressed with other chemical types, like stability and 
water, oil, stain, and heat resistance. This makes them crucial in 
making semiconductors, lithium ion batteries in electric vehicles, 
solar panels, wind turbine parts, medical devices and drugs, and 
protective gear for our military and law enforcement.
  This bill would create a hostile environment in the United States of 
America for their manufacture and use. It will create a de facto ban in 
the marketplace and a boon for trial lawyers. It prevents new PFAS from 
coming on to the market for 5 years. This will result in the drying up 
of investment in safe PFAS chemicals and PFAS product purchases. It 
also will signal to trial courts that all PFAS are hazardous.
  It singles out PFAS manufacturers and uses a complex and expensive 
regulatory approach. It uses an unattainable standard to ban 
incineration of PFAS-contaminated material. This will federalize local 
trash collection and clog our Nation's remaining landfill capacity.
  It attaches permanent, open-ended cleanup liability to any person who 
has ever been associated with PFAS, regardless of whether you were a 
good actor.
  Mr. Speaker, cleanup liability is:
  ``Strict,'' so your intent is irrelevant;
  ``Joint and several,'' so you are not just responsible for your fair 
share, you are responsible for everyone's shares;
  And, ``retroactive,'' so it doesn't matter if the liability occurred 
5 years, 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years ago or even further back.
  Given the compliance costs, the sidelining of investment, the endless 
liability under CERCLA, tort lawsuits, and the inability to make or 
finance safer replacement chemicals and products, it is not hard to see 
how H.R. 2467 creates a de facto ban on 9,252 chemicals. It threatens 
the viability of every industry that needs these chemicals and products 
that benefit our society.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, this bill essentially bans the 
materials that are necessary for America to win the future. That 
includes protective gear for law enforcement at a time when violent 
crime is surging in our country.
  In drafting this legislation over two Congresses, the majority never 
called

[[Page H3775]]

EPA to testify on the bill. Now we are left with the opinions of the 
politicians and the White House, not the career scientists and the 
experts who will have to implement it. So much for trust the science.
  In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has had trouble scoring 
this bill and a nearly identical bill from last Congress. That is 
because there are so many PFAS chemicals, and the mandates in this bill 
have no limits on either the Federal Treasury or the private sector. 
The bill also poses a significant burden on EPA's time and the lack of 
additional resources EPA will have to tackle other issues critical to 
their mission.
  We all want to have a good solution to address PFAS contamination, 
but this bill falls short, unfortunately.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to join me in opposing this approach. We 
can do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), who has done so much to protect our 
environment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
him for his extraordinary leadership as chair of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, and I thank him for bringing this important 
legislation to the floor. I thank Mr. Tonko for his leadership as chair 
of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, the Environment and Climate Change 
Subcommittee, and I thank Mr. McKinley, the ranking member on that 
subcommittee.
  I respectfully disagree with the ranking member of the full 
committee, and I will tell you why. I join our colleagues in support of 
the PFAS Action Act to address the serious public health issue that is 
a threat; PFAS chemicals, which are contaminating the water we drink, 
the air we breathe, and the food we eat.
  First, I salute Representative Debbie Dingell, a crusader in our 
mission to protect our communities from dangerous PFAS chemicals. I 
thank, again, as I said, Chairman Pallone, Chairman Tonko, and Ranking 
Member McKinley.
  Mr. Speaker, PFAS are referred to as ``forever chemicals''. They are 
so called because they do not easily break down and even accumulate 
over time. Right now, they are exposing millions of Americans to health 
risks ranging from cancer to asthma, and liver disease to thyroid 
dysfunction.
  For babies, they can be particularly devastating with prenatal 
exposure potentially leading to abnormal growth in utero, low birth 
rate, and increased risk of childhood obesity and infections. Our 
distinguished chairman enumerated other threats to the health and 
wellbeing of the American people.
  When people ask me: What are the three most important issues facing 
the Congress, I always say the same thing: Our children, our children, 
our children, their health, their education, the economic security of 
their families, and a safe and clean environment where they can thrive 
in a world of peace in which they can reach their fulfillment.
  Mr. Speaker, PFAS chemicals are clearly and seriously harming to our 
children's health.
  A coalition of public health groups, including the American Academy 
of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, National Medical 
Association, and Children's Environmental Health Network, have written: 
``These ubiquitous substances pose severe health risks across the 
United States and represent a growing threat to public health.''
  They further state: ``PFAS are particularly dangerous . . . 
widespread and likely present in the drinking water of tens of millions 
of Americans.''
  Further: ``Developing infants and children are particularly 
vulnerable to PFAS exposure. . . .
  ``Of concern, almost all fetuses and infants will have some degree of 
exposure to PFAS. . . .
  ``PFAS exposure before birth or in early childhood has been 
associated with decreased birth weight, effects on renal function and 
lipid serum levels, and immune system dysfunction.''
  That statement was from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American 
Public Health Association, National Medical Association, and the 
Children's Environmental Health Network.
  In addition to our children and young people, PFAS also poses a 
serious risk to America's servicemembers. There is an epidemic of 
contamination on military sites with more than 400 sites across the 
United States affected.
  I have had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of hearing the concerns of 
many of these families. It is not just about the servicemembers, it is 
about their children who are affected.
  It is unacceptable that the men and women who sacrifice to keep us 
safe around the world face this danger to their health and that of 
their children here at home. Yet, despite these obvious and well-known 
risks, big corporations have for decades failed or refused to prevent 
their spread.

                              {time}  1245

  A new study published last week shows that based on EPA data, an 
estimated 30,000 industrial sites are known or suspected of using toxic 
PFAS; 12 times what had been previously estimated. We cannot accept a 
situation where big special interests' bottom line comes before the 
public's lives.
  To address this crisis, 2 years ago, Democrats crafted strong 
legislation to rid our communities of PFAS. Many Democrats, and many 
Members here, played a key role in crafting PFAS-related bills that 
were included in the bipartisan NDAA agreement reached in the House 
that year.
  I thank Chairman Smith and the members of the committee. 
Unfortunately, the GOP Senate then refused to support full protections 
against PFAS chemicals and cut those key provisions from the NDAA; that 
is, the National Defense Authorization Act.
  Last year, House Democrats passed the PFAS Action Act of 2019, which 
passed with strong bipartisan support, but did not become law because 
Mitch McConnell senselessly refused to take it up in the Senate.
  Now the Democratic House will, once again, pass the PFAS Action Act 
and send it to the Senate. We are making clear that this legislation is 
a priority for the American people, and we will not relent until it is 
enacted.
  This legislation will clean up our communities by designating the two 
most-studied PFAS as a hazardous substance by the EPA and setting a 
deadline for the EPA to make designation decisions about all other PFAS 
chemicals.
  Next, it will create new, well-funded grants and partnerships with 
States to help clean up and remedy sites. It will stem the tide of 
further contamination with tough new testing, reporting, and monitoring 
requirements; strict limits on the introduction of new PFAS chemicals; 
limits on air pollution; banning unsafe incineration; and strong 
measures to hold contaminating companies accountable.
  I spent the time to be so specific because this is such a threat to 
the health and well-being of our children, our children, our children. 
I urge a strong vote for this legislation, which honors our first 
responsibility of Congress, to keep our American people safe.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), an exceptional 
leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee and a cardiothoracic 
surgeon.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill in 
its current form. I support the efforts to address dangerous, high 
levels of PFAS in our drinking water systems and other areas of our 
environment. That is why I submitted a bipartisan amendment with Mr. 
Schrader that would simply exempt PFAS used to manufacture medical 
devices and drugs that are approved by the FDA. It was a very limited 
amendment.
  Polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE, seen in the graph on the board 
behind me, is used to treat atrial septal defects, most of the time in 
young children. Thanks to great advancements in medical technology like 
this procedure, it is now done in an outpatient setting, rather than 
open-heart surgery. For years, I did open-heart surgery on people with 
ASDs, and now they can repair them with a device. This is one device 
that could be banned.
  Vascular grafts to repair aneurysms or bypass blocked arteries are 
another example. I implanted hundreds of these type of devices in 
patients. The fact of

[[Page H3776]]

the matter is, it has been shown over and over that PTFE in devices 
poses no risk to people or to our environment. The bill in its current 
form fails to consider that fact and jeopardizes patient access to 
lifesaving drugs and devices, leaving physicians and patients with no 
viable alternative or an inferior alternative. Would anyone want to be 
treated with an inferior alternative when we are unnecessarily banning 
the best treatment? I would argue no.
  Unfortunately, my commonsense, bipartisan, lifesaving amendment was 
not made in order. I hope this bill does continue to move through the 
legislative process and that we can work to address this issue. I urge 
a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone for yielding, and I 
thank him for his work on this piece of legislation, along with Mrs. 
Dingell, a member of the committee. Obviously, the gentlewoman's 
deceased husband was chairman of this committee and ranking member for 
many, many years and was a leader in many respects on addressing 
environmental challenges. This is an environmental challenge. There is 
no disagreement on that. There, obviously, is disagreement on 
specifics.
  The gentleman who just spoke, in a very knowledgeable and thoughtful 
way, said he hopes this legislation moves forward, but he is in 
opposition to it. I understand he does not want it to pass. But his 
comment was that, hopefully, this would be perfected in the legislative 
process.
  Now, I do not claim to be, Mr. Speaker, an expert on this chemical. I 
do know, however, that it affects my district, and every single 
congressional district in our country is affected by this challenge. 
That is because every district has faced the challenge of PFAS 
contamination, which has affected nearly 2,800 communities according to 
an analysis by the Environmental Working Group. I heard a figure of 
about 9,200 sites as well from the ranking member.
  Like countless other districts in the country, Maryland's Fifth 
District, which I have the privilege of representing, contamination has 
been detected at military installations. We are proud of our military 
installations. Pax River is a, I think, world leading air test, 
research, and evaluation center for naval air, as well as other air, 
including helicopters of the Army. Also in my district is the Naval 
Research Laboratory, Chesapeake Bay Detachment.
  The citizens surrounding them are concerned, rightly, about what the 
contamination may have done to the water they and their children drink 
or bathe in. Thankfully, the defense authorization that we enacted in 
2019 required our military to transition away from the use of PFAS 
chemicals in firefighting fluids, a major source of contamination.

  However, the PFAS pollution that has already occurred needs to be 
cleaned up, and this legislation would set requirements and deadlines 
for EPA to do so. Our citizens deserve to have that done. We must 
prevent PFAS chemicals from entering drinking water used by our 
communities. I think there is no disagreement on that.
  PFAS has been called a forever chemical. Apparently, the biological 
fact of life is that it does not degrade over long periods of time, 
because they can linger in the human body for a whole lifetime, causing 
health effects ranging from cancers to reproductive and immune system 
deficiencies.
  For 4 years, the previous administration claimed that it would take 
action through the EPA to protect Americans from PFAS contamination. 
Perhaps if they had done so, we wouldn't have this legislation; but 
they did not do so. They failed to protect the American people from 
these harmful chemicals. So the committee has acted in this instance 
and previously.
  Now it is time for Congress to act. Again, I am not an expert on this 
legislation, but I do know that the committee has carefully weighed how 
to make sure that we move forward, and in the view of people more 
expert than I, will not preclude every chemical from being utilized in 
needed and important items that we use every day in our society, but 
will provide, because of the designation as a hazardous material, that 
it be cleaned up where it is necessary to do so.
  It ensures that EPA finally takes measures to prevent future release 
of PFAS chemicals into our environment and clean them up where such 
contamination has occurred.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me, not just 
because this is so important to the people living in Maryland's Fifth 
District, but because it is critical to all Americans living in each 
and every one of our districts.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Senate to join us in taking this step to 
protect Americans' access to drinking water and look carefully at the 
issues that have been raised by the ranking member, legitimate issues 
in the sense that, yes, we ought to make sure that we are doing the 
right thing and that the good is not outweighed by the bad.
  In this instance, I think it is very clear that the good of this 
bill, the objectives of this bill, and the specifics of this bill, will 
redound to the benefit of the American people and each and every one of 
our communities, and I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote ``yes.''
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify that 
the previous administration, as well as the current administration, has 
been taking several actions in connection with PFAS; this large group 
of chemicals. We are talking about 9,252 chemicals; not just one.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Walberg), a member of the committee and a problem solver.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been working to combat PFAS in the Great Lakes 
State that, truthfully, led the Nation in PFAS efforts for many years, 
including with my Michigan colleagues and sponsors of this bill.
  Back in 2017, we hosted EPA staff at several contaminated sites in 
southeast Michigan so they could see firsthand the extent of the 
problem. We formed the Congressional PFAS Task Force and pushed for 
essential resources for PFAS research and cleanup efforts.
  Many of our efforts have, actually, been enacted into law during the 
last administration and countless cleanup efforts are currently ongoing 
at all levels of government. In fact, over half of the provisions in 
this bill are already underway at EPA.
  Unfortunately, other provisions in this bill would require the EPA to 
take a misguided approach by considering the group of more than 600 
PFAS currently on the market, and the thousands of other unknown 
potential PFAS chemistries as if they were all the same.
  Make no mistake, I believe this is a serious problem and it deserves 
serious solutions, but the bill before us today, although sincerely 
well-intended, goes too far. H.R. 2467 is so expansive that the CBO was 
unable to assign it a budgetary score, underscoring the untold cost and 
liability that it will impose on thousands, if not millions of 
manufacturers and consumers alike.
  H.R. 2467 represents the largest expansion of regulatory authority at 
the EPA or perhaps any Federal agency in decades. But even more so, 
this bill will hamstring our small businesses, manufacturers, and water 
utilities by forcing them to take on so much cost and liability that 
they will be unable to comply or forced to raise prices and hire armies 
of attorneys all because Congress decided to substitute its political 
agenda for objective scientific judgment.
  The Great Lakes Water Authority recently wrote to me regarding their 
concerns about the bill. A leading drinking water and wastewater 
treatment provider for southeast Michigan communities, Great Lakes 
Water Authority provides clean drinking water to nearly 40 percent of 
Michiganders. They told me this bill could likely cause them to be 
liable for trying to dispose of PFAS even if they are using current 
best practices.
  As many would say, we ought to follow the science by letting the 
experts at EPA do their jobs and refrain from prejudging outcomes, 
overhauling existing regulatory structures, and most importantly, 
crippling our economy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

[[Page H3777]]

  


                              {time}  1300

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee who has always been so cooperative with us on 
both this bill and so many others.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for 
the cooperative work we have done on this bill, clean water bills, and 
many other issues. It is great to work with him and the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. The health 
effects that are known, are, you know, just a few things: cancer, 
kidney disease, pregnancy-related disorders, low birth weights, and 
immune system repression. But that is just what we know, so I guess we 
shouldn't worry about this too much.
  Once it is in the environment, it breaks down. Once it is in your 
body, it doesn't go away. You get to certain levels and, then, you are 
going to start having these health effects. They are forever chemicals.
  But, right now, there are no stringent requirements to test or 
monitor for PFAS. We don't know the extent of the pollution.
  This bill is critical to address this legacy and public health risk 
and put us on a path to addressing the pervasive threat to our health, 
our citizens, and our environment.
  I want to highlight a few sections that fall within the jurisdiction 
of my committee, the provisions which designate PFAS-related chemicals 
as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act, CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund.
  We did put in a very limited exemption, which goes to firefighting at 
airports. Right now, the foam they use contains PFAS, and if they 
follow the FAA rules, they won't have liability. But DOD, FAA, and 
others are researching alternatives for foam retardants, and hopefully, 
they won't have to use this stuff in the near future.
  There are two Clean Water Act amendments that will limit the 
additional release of PFAS; the first by the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Pappas), who has been very persistent on this issue, 
closing a Clean Water Act loophole for discharges. Today, companies can 
legally discharge almost unlimited quantities of PFAS-related chemicals 
into rivers, streams, and lakes because the EPA has not set limits for 
discharging into our aquatic environment. This is unacceptable. The 
gentleman's amendment will set statutory guidelines for the EPA to act 
and set those limits.
  Section 17 prioritizes the industry sectors with the greatest 
likelihood of discharging harmful quantities. The gentleman did great 
work on this. We worked with wastewater utilities and industry 
representatives, and they agree with our approach.
  I also rise in support of section 13, another Clean Water Act 
provision, by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Delgado), a member of my 
committee, to prevent our sewers from being dumping grounds. Industrial 
discharges can now be discharged into local municipal systems, and if 
it is not known, then they can't deal with it. They can't pretreat it, 
and they can't get it out.
  So, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I thank everyone who 
participated in its writing.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), another dynamic member of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, throughout the consideration of this bill 
in committee, at Rules, and now here, several of my Democratic 
colleagues have argued CERCLA liability only attaches to two legacy 
chemicals, and we don't have to worry about others. Unfortunately, that 
is not the case.
  This bill requires regulatory determination on 9,250 different 
chemicals, individually or in groups, on whether they will be CERCLA 
hazardous substances.
  My colleagues argue that people don't have to worry about Superfund 
liability if they don't cause environmental harm. This argument is 
false.
  Superfund liability is strict liability. If a party has any 
involvement, they are liable, period, end of story. That strict 
liability is what causes concern and is why Mr. Burgess offered an 
amendment to make only those who cause the pollution pay for its 
cleanup. For some reason, the majority found issue with that amendment 
and prevented its commonsense consideration.
  If there is interest on the other side of the aisle in changing the 
overall rules of Superfund liability, I am sure we would be happy to 
consider it. Short of that improvement, my colleagues should not take 
comfort that only reckless, willful, or irresponsible parties will be 
held liable under future CERCLA designations.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko), the chairman of the Environment and Climate Change 
Subcommittee, who has worked very hard on this issue for a number of 
years.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding and for his leadership on this bill.
  We know the health effects of PFAS exposure can be severe: cancer, 
thyroid problems, birth defects, and immune system disruptions, amongst 
others. Sadly, there are many communities and individuals across our 
great country who are suffering these health consequences.
  Despite knowing the dangers of these forever chemicals, the Federal 
Government has been slow to act. I say enough is enough.
  The PFAS Action Act would require significant steps to ensure that 
our Federal Government is responding comprehensively and reducing the 
risk of exposure through our air, water, and consumer products.
  It includes actions under numerous environmental statutes, including 
designating the two most well-studied PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, as hazardous 
substances and setting a deadline for a national drinking water 
standard to, at a minimum, ensure vulnerable groups, including pregnant 
women, infants, and children, are protected.
  The bill includes other critical provisions to reduce exposure, 
empower consumers, and expedite cleanups.

  Despite what some may want to suggest, designating PFOA and PFOS as 
hazardous substances under CERCLA is not a ban. There are literally 
hundreds of hazardous substances that continue to be used in 
manufacturing processes and commerce broadly.
  What it will do is ensure that polluters are held accountable to 
clean up their messes when toxic releases occur and ensure that 
remediation is done to an acceptable level.
  We have waited far too long already for action. Despite promising 
initial steps from the Biden administration, I fear the EPA will not 
adequately address PFAS without clear direction from Congress. As the 
administration recognized, this bill supports the commitment across the 
branches of government to take on this challenge.
  This is the bill our constituents and those living with PFAS in their 
communities need.
  I thank Representatives Dingell and Upton for their commitment to 
addressing these dangerous forever chemicals, and I encourage Members 
to support this bill.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), our policy chairman and a member 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2467.
  This misguided bill treats all PFAS chemicals the same way, creating 
a de facto ban on many lifesaving products that Americans rely on.
  By voting for this bill, my Democratic colleagues are ignoring the 
science, including peer-reviewed research that clearly shows that 
certain fluoropolymers, including some that have been used for more 
than 50 years, do not present a concern for human health or the 
environment.
  Despite this evidence, my Democrat colleagues have refused to make 
reasonable changes to this bill so that fluoropolymer chemicals used in 
FDA-approved medical devices are not labeled hazardous substances under 
CERCLA and the Clean Air Act.
  Let me put it bluntly. By not exempting the fluoropolymers used in 
medical devices already approved by

[[Page H3778]]

the FDA, you are denying people access to lifesaving products such as 
heart valves for infants and grafts for aortic aneurysm repairs.
  I ask my Democrat colleagues: Are you so opposed to all categories of 
PFAS chemicals that you commit to refusing all medical devices and 
drugs containing the fluoropolymers you are banning?
  If you must have open-heart surgery, will you instruct your doctor to 
avoid using any device or surgical instrument that has fluoropolymers 
regardless of the implications for the outcome?
  If your child or grandchild needs an FDA-approved heart valve, do you 
commit to denying them that care since it contains fluoropolymers?
  That is what you are trying to force on the general population with 
this legislation.
  Furthermore, this bill will put millions of Americans who have 
already received medical devices containing fluoropolymers at risk. As 
noted in committee by my colleague, Dr. Larry Bucshon, with the passage 
of this bill, the FDA might have to designate all devices with any 
fluoropolymers as hazardous and recall them.
  There is bipartisan agreement on the need to protect the public from 
harmful PFAS chemicals, but there is no rational reason why lifesaving 
fluoropolymers could not be exempted.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), who is the sponsor of the bill and who has 
really brought our attention to this issue and prioritized it from the 
very beginning.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for being such a 
strong leader and getting us to where we are today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here in support of this very 
important piece of bipartisan legislation, which I am leading with my 
good friend and colleague, Representative Fred Upton.
  This is a meaningful bill that is the product of good bipartisan work 
by the Energy and Commerce Committee. It passed the House with strong 
bipartisan support in the last Congress, and it is an example that 
bipartisanship does exist on Capitol Hill. This bill embodies it, and 
today's vote will once again validate that.
  PFAS chemicals are an urgent threat to public health. This class of 
manmade chemicals is extremely persistent in the environment and has 
long been linked with adverse health effects, including cancer.
  These chemicals were birthed out of the Manhattan Project, and, now, 
nearly every American, almost every American, has PFAS coursing through 
their blood after generations of use of these drugs in our modern 
society.
  The EPA has understood the risks posed by PFAS since 1998. The 
Defense Department has understood the risks since the 1970s. The FDA 
has understood the risks since the 1960s. And industry has known about 
the dangers for decades.
  But we still do not have a strong Federal policy to combat these 
forever chemicals, which are a crisis. We have yet to set a national 
drinking water standard for PFAS that our water utilities need to meet. 
We have yet to designate them as hazardous substances under Superfund 
to jump-start cleanup. We have yet to regulate industrial discharges of 
PFAS into our water and our air. And we have yet to establish simple 
labeling that PFAS is in a product to allow consumers to protect 
themselves.
  This can all change if we pass the PFAS Action Act.
  According to the Environmental Working Group, over 200 million 
Americans are drinking water now contaminated with PFAS, and we are 
finding more and more contamination regularly. Just today, the 
Environmental Working Group reported that PFAS have been detected in 
2,800 communities, including 2,411 drinking water systems, and at 328 
military installations nationwide.

  Listen to me: The Pentagon is not going to prioritize cleanup of 
these military sites until these chemicals are listed as the hazardous 
substances that they are.
  I want to be clear: I love my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, but there is nothing in this bill that would ban PFAS used in 
drugs, medical devices, or PPE. It will not ban masks.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. It is time we protect 
Americans.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), another member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and a decorated Navy SEAL.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight a dangerous 
implication of this bill and urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  There is no disagreement that the Federal Government has a role to 
play in cleaning up the most heavily contaminated sites and 
establishing standards so that our water is safe to drink. We are 
united in this, both Republicans and Democrats.
  While this bill shares the spirit of that, frankly, it got hopelessly 
lost along the way. Instead, it creates a mess of lawsuits.
  We could have fixed this. Republicans have pointed out the pitfalls. 
Democrats say those pitfalls don't exist. Experts say, yes, they do. We 
could fix this.

                              {time}  1315

  In committee we discussed how this impacts a full suite of products, 
from medical devices to computer chips.
  But there is one element that is particularly concerning to me. Under 
this legislation, a police department that purchases one of the most 
popular bulletproof vests to protect its officers against rising crime 
would now be subject to environmental lawsuits.
  And here's why: A bulletproof vest becomes increasingly ineffective 
if it is exposed to moisture. As a result, it is protected by a 
waterproofing PFAS chemical to keep it dry and effective against 
bullets.
  By imposing a de facto ban--and it is a de facto ban--on all PFAS 
chemicals, even those that pose no risk to human health or the 
environment, this legislation will significantly reduce the 
availability of lifesaving equipment.
  Manufacturers, or others in the supply chain, will seek to avoid the 
PFAS liabilities created by this bill under CERCLA. So police 
departments, rather than worrying about protecting our communities, 
will now have to worry about whether or not they will be subject to an 
environmental lawsuit.
  Instead, police departments themselves will be forced to make 
impossible decisions; continuing to use PFAS-containing, lifesaving 
equipment or risk huge legal liability when the equipment is disposed 
of.
  This bill will bring entities like police departments, and anyone and 
everyone who is even remotely involved with PFAS material, under the 
wide dragnet of litigation that they don't have the resources to fight.
  As Democrats seek to defund police across the country, police 
departments are already strapped for cash. So under this bill, we are 
forcing police departments to decide whether to defend themselves 
against lawsuits or purchase the material they need to keep their 
officers safe.
  That is why I introduced a simple amendment that would limit the 
liability of police departments, first responders, and our military 
from being endlessly sued if they require these materials to protect 
themselves.
  My amendment didn't limit the EPA's ability to actually regulate 
these chemicals or even determine which ones are safe or unsafe. Nor 
did it allow police departments to dispose of these products in an 
unsafe way and be shielded from consequences.
  It just said, if a police department or first responder follows the 
letter of the law in dealing with these materials, they shouldn't be 
threatened with endless lawsuits. But, sadly, my colleagues didn't make 
my amendment in order.
  So while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are desperately 
trying to prove that they support our police officers after a year of 
demonizing them, the bill shows that really nothing has changed.
  But there is one more chance to make this right. I will be offering 
my amendment as the motion to recommit for this legislation. Our police 
officers need to know that Congress has their back, especially now. 
This motion to recommit is a chance to do just that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and vote for my 
amendment to protect our police and our military and our first 
responders.

[[Page H3779]]

  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2467, 
the PFAS Action Act.
  PFAS compounds do not naturally break down in the environment. 
Exposure to even small amounts of PFAS has been linked to diseases, 
birth defects, and developmental disorders.
  These chemicals have been used in consumer products for decades and 
have, thus, been allowed to spread and accumulate throughout the 
environment, into our air, our water, and our soils.
  In my own district, PFAS has been detected in multiple drinking water 
systems, which puts the health and safety of my constituents at risk. 
The same can be said for millions of people in communities across the 
country.
  Until recently, the extent of the problem was underestimated in my 
home State. With expanded testing, we now know that California is one 
of the most impacted States in the country. A recent investigation by 
the State Water Resources Control Board showed PFAS contamination in 
almost 100 public water systems serving about 7.5 million Californians.
  We need a national strategy to prevent exposure to these toxic 
substances. This bill sets a deadline for the EPA to take action on 
establishing standards, limits the introduction of new PFAS into 
commerce and the environment, and provides support for communities to 
install treatment technologies. This bill is needed both to clean up 
pollution now and to prevent it from getting worse in the future.
  I want to thank Representative Dingell and Representative Upton for 
their leadership on H.R. 2467 and Chairman Pallone, Chairman Tonko, for 
helping to move this important legislation. I also want to thank the 
committee staff for their work on this bill.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a physician and member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 
2467, the PFAS Action Act. This bill takes the wrong approach to 
dealing with these complex and complicated chemicals.
  A de facto ban on all PFAS substances will do nothing but prevent 
secure disposal of existing chemicals and harm innovation of new, safer 
products.
  As a physician, I have personally seen the benefits provided by these 
products. PFAS materials have a variety of uses in healthcare, ranging 
from heart valves, cardiac stents, to coatings on contact lenses.

  Thanks to technology developed using PFAS materials, surgeries, such 
as those that are needed to repair a child's congenital heart defect, 
no longer require risky open-heart surgery and can simply be done 
through the arm.
  Of course, we don't want dangerous chemicals in our water supply. But 
to outright ban an entire family of products is not the answer. We 
would not ban the entire periodic table because it includes arsenic and 
mercury. We need a science-grounded, risk-based approach that 
identifies the most harmful chemicals and treats them as such, rather 
than have Congress regulate the entire family as a single group.
  Inclusion in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act has the potential to slow down the cleanup process of 
PFAS, divert resources from current higher-priority public health 
issues and create another unfunded mandate for critical public 
utilities and local governments.
  Instead of interfering, it is time to let government agencies do 
their work. And so I urge my colleagues, join me, vote ``no'' on H.R. 
2467.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor), who chairs the House Select Committee on the 
Climate Crisis.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act.
  These PFAS chemicals, synthetic, manmade chemicals, have now, 
according to the science, evolved into a very significant public health 
threat, and it is time that Congress act to protect our neighbors back 
home, families, communities all across America with the passage of this 
bill.
  This is a bipartisan bill, and I want to thank my colleagues, 
Congresswoman Dingell and Congressman Upton, for leading the charge 
here, because what they propose and what we will vote on today will 
protect our communities by instituting some new oversight and 
regulations of these forever chemicals in PFAS, help us clean up these 
chemicals from our drinking water, and protect the public health.
  These PFAS chemicals are not regulated in any way right now. They are 
often used in firefighting foam, in nonstick surfaces, stain-resistant 
surfaces, and food packaging. The Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry has determined that PFAS exposure is associated with 
low birth weight babies, an increased rate of cancer, lower fertility 
rates, and developmental issues in young children and infants.
  A new study out of the Yale School of Public Health recently found 
that exposure increases the risk of miscarriage by 80 to 120 percent in 
pregnant women. The CDC also issued a disclosure regarding a potential 
intersection between PFAS and COVID-19.
  These chemicals now have been detected in communities all across the 
country. This bill will help us rely on the science, provide some 
safeguards, make sure we are gathering the scientific data we need to 
keep our communities safe back home.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action 
Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, most folks have never heard of PFAS. In 
Michigan we found out the hard way. Again.
  Sadly, we know a little bit about water contamination. Think Flint, 
think lead. PFAS is bad, too. Really bad.
  The EPA has been slow at the switch. Three years ago, I stepped off 
the plane coming back from D.C. for the August break, and I got a call. 
It was bad. It was from one of my State senators. One of my towns had 
been identified just a few hours earlier with having alarming PFAS 
parts per trillion numbers.
  We had to act right away. I drove straight to the sheriff command 
center, prompted the immediate notification of thousands of residents. 
It was nearly midnight. Before they could make infant formula or coffee 
in the morning or even water their vegetable garden, they had to stop. 
They had to unplug their icemakers in their refrigerators. For months 
they had to line up at churches and schools to get cases of water for 
human consumption.
  We had a bipartisan bill to require the EPA to set a minimum standard 
for PFOA and PFAS, which House Republicans agreed to, but we were later 
denied. It would have started the EPA's clock, which is why we need to 
act now.
  We know this stuff is bad. We know this causes cancer. This bill is 
not perfect. It needs to see a number of constructive changes before it 
reaches the President's desk, but I want to thank  Dan Kildee and Brian 
Fitzpatrick, the two co-chairs of the bipartisan Congressional PFAS 
Task Force.
  I want to thank Chairman Pallone. I also want to thank my colleague 
Debbie Dingell for authoring this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Miss 
Rice), a member of our committee.
  Miss RICE of New York. Madam Speaker, I can't believe I am about to 
say this, but I think what I am hearing

[[Page H3780]]

from the majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle, with 
the exception of my good friend Mr. Upton, is that they just want a 
little more toxic chemicals in your water.
  That simply cannot be true.
  In my district on Long Island, we have long struggled with PFAS water 
contamination, and many communities have already incurred substantial 
remediation costs.
  That is why I am pleased that the PFAS Action Act includes my 
provision to reimburse these local communities for their past expenses. 
Communities that could not wait for Federal action and redirected their 
resources to address this health threat should not be punished for 
doing the right thing.

  This is a situation that the Federal Government has failed to address 
for decades. We have the opportunity to do it now.
  I want to thank my good friends, Representatives Dingell and Upton, 
and the chairman of the committee for bringing this commonsense bill to 
the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), a leader on the Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
2467, but not necessarily in defense or in critique of PFAS.
  Unfortunately, this legislation puts the cart before the horse. It 
would establish a PFAS standard before the EPA has the information to 
determine the best regulatory action.
  While written and passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee, this 
bill contains provisions within the jurisdiction of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee, of which I am also a member. However, T&I 
never considered this bill, which greatly concerns me. Our committee 
didn't hold one hearing or one markup on this bill or on the provisions 
contained in it. T&I Democrats completely ceded the committee's 
authority and expertise.

                              {time}  1330

  If we had held a hearing or a markup, Republicans would have pointed 
out that the Clean Water Act, which is squarely in the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, grants ample 
authority to the EPA and contains a long-established process for 
evaluating chemicals and regulating the discharge of those substances 
when they pose a significant risk to water quality.
  We would have noted that the EPA already has efforts under way to 
evaluate PFAS substances pursuant to the Clean Water Act, including 
managing risks from PFAS.
  However, this bill short-circuits the long-established regulatory 
review process under the Clean Water Act and it ignores the expertise 
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  H.R. 2467 imposes unrealistic deadlines on the EPA and asks the EPA 
to regulate before it has the necessary data to make a legally and 
scientifically sound regulatory plan.
  Legislating in this careless fashion undermines the confidence in 
both the bill and the legislative process to develop it.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I encourage us to continue 
looking at this issue.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the PFAS Action Act 
of 2021 because this overdue legislation will save lives.
  We know that PFAS chemicals, otherwise known as forever chemicals, 
have been linked to harmful health effects, including increased rates 
of cancer.
  Yet, for far too long, they have been unchecked and unregulated.
  Now, these same chemicals are being discovered at toxic levels in 
drinking water supplies in communities that I represent and across our 
country.
  In fact, as many as 200 million Americans are currently drinking 
PFAS-contaminated water, often without even knowing it.
  While my home State of Massachusetts has led the way in responding to 
PFAS contaminations in recent years, including the groundbreaking of a 
new 10,000-square foot treatment plant in my district in Littleton, 
most States are falling further and further behind, leaving their 
residents at risk.
  Madam Speaker, we have the ability to change that today.
  Passage of the PFAS Action Act will bolster State and local 
initiatives like those already under way in Massachusetts.
  This legislation will provide the resources and policies necessary to 
clean up contaminated drinking water sites, support families who have 
been exposed to PFAS chemicals, and take critical steps to prevent 
future exposures.
  I am grateful to Representatives Dingell and Upton, as well as our 
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Pallone, for their 
bipartisan work on this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, not because it will 
hurt corporations who want to continue the unregulated use of these 
dangerous chemicals, but because the health and well-being of the 
hardworking families they represent are at stake if they don't.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), the lead Republican on the 
Oversight and Reform Committee.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the PFAS Action Act.
  As the ranking member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, I 
have participated in many hours of hearings during the previous 
Congress where we explored issues involving PFAS materials and heard 
from witnesses spanning many perspectives on this important issue.
  As legislation and regulations are advanced to address PFAS issues, 
it is critical that we ensure that these efforts define the chemicals 
of concern consistently, adequately, and properly as supported by sound 
science. In the current bill, however, what is ultimately classified as 
a PFAS material is either left open to interpretation by EPA or broadly 
defined. Using either approach risks subjecting potentially thousands 
of chemicals to unnecessary regulation or restriction.
  As we have heard previously in the House Oversight and Reform 
Committee, and as we have heard on the floor this week during debate on 
various amendments, a broad definition of PFAS could subject such key 
products as lithium-ion batteries, semiconductors, refrigerants, and 
medical devices, to name just a few, to regulation and restriction. All 
these products provide important benefits, and some, in the case of 
batteries and semiconductors, have been specifically highlighted by 
President Biden as part of his efforts to review and reshore critical 
supply chains.
  It is, therefore, essential that we properly define PFAS, so that 
implementing regulations can focus on those materials, such as PFOA and 
PFOS, where there is scientific consensus for regulation, while also 
ensuring that unnecessary regulations are not placed on key uses of 
PFAS.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the definitions and 
criteria that are being put forward as the basis for PFAS regulation 
and to take steps to ensure that these classifications are carefully 
tailored and supported by sound science.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak on this issue. And still I rise.
  And I rise today because, as a Member of Congress, I believe we have 
a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to act when industry is not 
acting, and the health of the American people is at risk.
  It is time for Congress to do what it should have done, what EPA has 
not done, what we can do. I believe that there is no option but to vote 
``yes.'' No is not an option when it comes to the health and safety of 
the American people.

  I will vote ``yes.'' I will vote for the American people and their 
safety.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).
  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for 
his leadership on this legislation.

[[Page H3781]]

  I rise in support of the PFAS Action Act, a landmark bill that will 
protect millions of Americans from these toxic forever chemicals.
  We know PFAS persists in the environment and the human body, and it 
is making our constituents sick. This legislation addresses legacy 
contamination and its associated health effects. Importantly, this bill 
will also go to the source, and halt active contamination and work to 
hold polluters accountable.
  That is exactly what my provision is designed to do. This legislation 
includes my bill, the Clean Water Standards for PFAS Act, which 
addresses toxic PFAS discharges and invests in local infrastructure.
  No polluter should be able to dump PFAS unchecked into our waterways 
and into our wastewater systems. PFAS should be handled like other 
toxic substances that have been regulated through the Clean Water Act.
  We must also support wastewater systems to make necessary 
infrastructure upgrades that will stop PFAS from poisoning our 
environment and our water. This bill would authorize $200 million a 
year for these grants.
  Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan issue, and it is an issue that 
literally affects every State and every district across this country.
  Just yesterday I joined a round table of concerned leaders in my 
district whose message was crystal clear: Pass this bill and protect 
the health and well-being of our communities and our families.
  I heard from the town manager in Bedford, New Hampshire, who spoke to 
me about residents receiving bottled water for the past 3 years because 
their wells are contaminated. Families and businesses in several 
neighboring communities face the same situation. How many more years 
are we going to let these people wait for clean water?
  A constituent of mine named Lisa, from the Seacoast region of New 
Hampshire, has two kids who drank PFAS-laced water for a number of 
years when they were growing up. They faced a number of unimaginable 
health impacts as a result of that.
  How many more households like Lisa's will there be in this particular 
situation if we allow more PFAS out into the environment?
  Far too many Americans are drinking from contaminated systems and 
wells. Far too many Americans are at the mercy of industrial polluters 
and have brought this problem to our doorstep.
  I urge passage of this bill.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much 
time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Unfortunately, this bill is not just limited to legacy contamination. 
It creates a hostile environment for the manufacture and use of PFAS, 
present and future.
  The ban in this bill is a de facto ban on 9,252 PFAS, as well as 
numerous lifesaving and critical products containing PFAS.
  A de facto ban is a system where many suppliers of a product are 
allowed, but the environment is so completely hostile to its existence, 
that the product might as well not be made.
  The aggressive, unscientific regulatory approach in this bill, 
coupled with its extremely limited exemptions, will create stigma and 
uncertainty, and that will result in increased litigation in trial 
courts for products containing PFAS.
  If you start stacking up the negative market pressures created 
through:
  One, increased compliance costs;
  Two, limited disposal options;
  Three, sidelined investments;
  Four, unquantifiable and permanent liability under CERCLA;
  Five, tort lawsuits aided by legislative stigma;
  Six, marketplace challenges;
  Seven, the inability to make or finance a safer replacement chemical 
or product, it is not hard to see how H.R. 2467 creates a de facto ban 
on 9,252 chemicals and threatens the viability of these industries and 
the industries that need them and the products containing them that 
benefit our society.
  Unfortunately, this is not a new tactic. It has been done before with 
the war on coal under the Obama administration, and now we are seeing 
it with the rest of fossil fuels and any product that some decide they 
don't like.
  The word ``ban'' may not appear, but by creating massive costs 
through regulatory barriers and mandates, uncertainty, and taxes, a de 
facto ban is created by the cost of doing business. The cost of doing 
business becomes too high and we, as Americans, become dependent upon 
other countries, dangerously dependent upon other countries. It 
jeopardizes manufacturing in our country, and then we wonder why people 
are not manufacturing in the United States.
  It has been done on coal, it has been done on fossil fuels, and today 
it is being done on American manufacturers.
  We can do better. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. 
Let's go back, let's do better. We all want to protect clean drinking 
water. That is a shared goal. Let's stay focused on that goal. Vote 
``no'' on this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This comprehensive bill reflects the hard work of many of my 
colleagues. I want to thank some of the leaders in the House who have 
made this bill possible.

  Representative Dingell has led this bill for several years now, never 
losing sight of the communities she represents who have been impacted 
by PFAS in their environment and in their water.
  The bill builds on legislation from Representative Sean Patrick 
Maloney to require health effects testing on all PFAS chemicals. This 
critical testing forms the basis of required decisions throughout this 
package.
  The legislation also sets a moratorium on new PFAS until EPA has the 
science it needs to properly evaluate them and will ensure that all new 
PFAS are properly reviewed before going forward. This provision was 
authored and led through the committee process by Representative Kuster 
and also reflects the hard work of Representative Dean.
  Another essential piece of this bill builds on bipartisan legislation 
from Representatives Boyle and Fitzpatrick to set a national drinking 
water standard that protects public health, including the health of 
pregnant women, infants, and children.
  The legislation also takes important steps to address air emissions 
of PFAS. It incorporates legislation from Representative Stevens to 
address PFAS emissions under the Clean Air Act and legislation from 
Representatives Khanna and Levin to restrict unsafe incineration of 
PFAS wastes, including firefighting foam.
  Next, the bill includes a provision by Representative Soto to create 
a voluntarily PFAS-free label for cookware, so consumers can take steps 
to protect themselves from exposure. I also thank Representative 
Slotkin for her work to expand that label.
  The bill includes a provision by Representative Fletcher requiring 
EPA to issue guidance for first responders to both minimize the use of 
PFAS in firefighting foam and turnout gear and also minimize their 
risks. That provision was improved last year with input from 
Representative Golden. Risks to first responders are also a very 
serious concern, and I thank Representative Fletcher for her work on 
that important issue.
  Lastly, the bill incorporates two provisions related to the Clean 
Water Act from Representatives Delgado and Pappas. Those important 
provisions will protect our natural resources and stem the flow of 
contamination into our waterways.
  Madam Speaker, I include the following documents in the Record: A 
letter from the Sierra Club; a letter from the United States Conference 
of Catholic Bishops; a letter from the Coalition of NGO's; a letter 
from Defense Communities; a letter from the League of Conservation 
Voters; and an article from Environmental Health News titled: ``The 
real story behind PFAS and Congress' effort to clean up 
contamination.'' That is an op-ed.

                                                  Sierra Club,

                                                    July 15, 2021.
       Dear Member of Congress, On behalf of our over four million 
     members and supporters, Sierra Club writes to express our

[[Page H3782]]

     support of H.R. 2467 the PFAS Action Act of 2021. We ask that 
     you vote in support of this critical package and 
     strengthening amendments.
       Communities around the United States are facing grave 
     threats to their drinking water and health due to Per- and 
     Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). This class of chemicals is 
     widely used to make carpets, fabrics for furniture, Teflon 
     coatings for cookware, paper packaging for food and other 
     everyday materials. They're even used in firefighting foam 
     (aqueous film forming foam; AFFF) for both civilian and 
     military purposes.
       PFAS chemicals can't be broken down in an environment and 
     effectively poison water sources. Right now, scientists 
     estimate that more than 100 million Americans are drinking 
     PFAS-contaminated water. This contamination is strongly 
     linked to cancer, immune system suppression, thyroid 
     problems, reproductive system damage and harming of 
     children's growth and development.
       The PFAS Action Act takes critical steps in ensuring our 
     communities are protected from dangerous chemicals. There are 
     9 important amendments that extend important protections 
     against PFAS chemicals. However, two stand out as critical in 
     dealing with PFAS contamination. First, Rep. Andy Levin's 
     Amendment #8 to prohibit incineration of PFAS-based 
     firefighting foams. Second, Rep. Sarbanes and Fitzpatrick's 
     Amendment #15 which would require chemical companies to 
     provide the analytical standards that allow chemists to 
     measure new PFAS chemicals in people and the environment.
       Everyone, no matter zip code, gender or race, deserves 
     clean drinking water and a healthy environment. We must 
     safeguard frontline communities from the damage of PFAS. We 
     need to stop emitting PFAS into the environment and protect 
     those populations most susceptible to chemical 
     contamination--like women, children and military service 
     members. The PFAS Action Act is an important step in that 
     process.
       Sierra Club urges you to support the PFAS Action Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Michael Brune,
     Executive Director, Sierra Club.
                                  ____

                                          United States Conference


                                          of Catholic Bishops,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 2021.
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the United States 
     Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Domestic 
     Justice and Human Development and Committee on Pro-Life 
     Activities, we write in support of the PFAS Action Act of 
     2021 (H.R. 2467). This bipartisan legislation aims to reduce 
     human and environmental exposure to toxic chemicals.
       Per-fluoroalkyl and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are 
     a diverse class of compounds containing thousands of 
     individual chemicals. Useful for non-stick and water-
     repellent properties, certain PFAS have been integrated into 
     numerous household products. PFAS have also been employed in 
     firefighting foam across the United States.
       PFAS are resistant to degradation and bioaccumulate in the 
     environment and the human body. Prolonged exposure to these 
     chemicals can cause cancer, thyroid problems, birth defects, 
     and reproductive, developmental, and immune system 
     disruptions. Of particular concern is a growing body of 
     research that indicates pregnant and nursing mothers, and 
     their children, are especially affected. Such exposure occurs 
     through polluted drinking water, food, soil, dust and the use 
     of consumer products manufactured using PFAS. The widespread 
     utilization of these ``forever chemicals'' has resulted in 
     significant environmental contamination.
       The USCCB has consistently promoted integral human 
     development, where technology and human ingenuity are 
     directed towards the common good. Human and environmental 
     health concerns are interconnected, and we must not forget 
     that ``human life is itself a gift which must be defended 
     from various forms of debasement'' (Laudato Si', no. 5). The 
     PFAS Action Act of 2021 both upholds the dignity of human 
     life and preserves ecological health. It regulates PFAS, 
     enacts drinking water standards, and designates contaminated 
     sites as eligible for Superfund cleanup.
       Access to safe, potable water is an indispensable human 
     right and government leaders have a moral responsibility to 
     safeguard society from poisonous chemical contaminations. 
     Addressing U.S. Congress in 2015, Pope Francis declared that 
     ``you are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your 
     fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the 
     common good.'' We pray for your efforts to protect the life 
     and health of mothers, the unborn, all of society, and God's 
     creation.
           Sincerely yours,
     Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley,
       Archbishop of Oklahoma City, Chair, Committee on Domestic 
     Justice, and Human Development, United States Conference of 
     Catholic Bishops.
     Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann,
       Archbishop of Kansas City, Chair, Committee on Pro-Life 
     Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
                                  ____

                                                    July 19, 2020.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steve Scalise,
     Minority Whip,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Minority Leader 
     McCarthy, Minority Whip Scalise and members of the House of 
     Representatives: On behalf of our millions of members and 
     supporters, the undersigned non-governmental organizations 
     write today to urge you to vote YES on H.R. 2467, the PFAS 
     Action Act.
       Toxic PFAS chemicals have now been confirmed in the water 
     of nearly 2800 communities, including over 300 military 
     installations, and studies have linked PFAS to serious health 
     problems, including cancer. H.R. 2467 will build on the 
     progress made in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     FY 2020 by restricting industrial releases of PFAS into our 
     air and water, setting a drinking water standard for PFOA and 
     PFOS in tap water, and by kick-starting the process of 
     cleaning up legacy PFAS contamination by designating PFOA and 
     PFOS as hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law.
       The science is clear: PFAS have been linked to serious 
     health problems through decades of animal, worker, and human 
     studies. Unfortunately, EPA has failed to take steps to 
     restrict air and water releases, reduce PFAS in our tap 
     water, or clean up the nation's most contaminated sites. H.R. 
     2467 will set clear deadlines requiring EPA to do just that. 
     Designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, as 
     proposed by H.R. 2467, will not ban PFAS--but will instead 
     ensure that the most contaminated sites are finally cleaned 
     up.
       We urge you to vote YES on H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act.
           Sincerely,
       Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Breast Cancer Prevention 
     Partners, Center for Environmental Health, Clean Cape Fear, 
     Clean Water Action, Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center, 
     Community Action Works, Consumer Reports, Defend Our Health, 
     Ecology Center, Environment America, Environment North 
     Carolina, Environmental Working Group, Green Science Policy 
     Institute, Green CAPE.
       Healthy Babies Bright Futures, League of Conservation 
     Voters, Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water, Michigan League 
     of Conservation Voters, Moms for a Nontoxic New York, Natural 
     Resources Defense Council, NC Child, NC Conservation Network, 
     Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, Sierra Club, Southern 
     Environmental Law Center, Toxic-Free Future, U.S. PIRG, Union 
     of Concerned Scientists, Vermont Conservation Voters, Zero 
     Waste Washington.
                                  ____


Protect Our Defense Communities From PFAS Pollution--Designate PFOA and 
                      PFOS as Hazardous Substances

                                                    July 20, 2021.
       Dear Representative: Our communities host many of the 
     hundreds of military installations that are now contaminated 
     with the toxic ``forever chemicals'' known as PFAS. While 
     Congress has acted to end the use of firefighting foam made 
     with PFAS, Congress has not yet taken steps to ensure that 
     legacy PFAS pollution is cleaned up.
       To protect our defense communities from toxic pollution, we 
     urge you to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances 
     under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability, 
     and Compensation Act. Designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous 
     substances under CERCLA will ensure that the Defense 
     Department treats PFAS pollution at military installations as 
     a priority.
       Some members of Congress have argued that designating PFOA 
     and PFOS as ``hazardous substances'' under CERCLA will ban 
     the use of these two chemicals from medical devices, 
     semiconductors, lithium batteries and even surgical masks. 
     This is not correct. First, PFOA and PFOS are no longer used 
     in commerce. Second, designation of a chemical as a hazardous 
     substance does not result in a ban of the chemical. Nearly 80 
     percent of the chemicals designated as hazardous substances 
     are still used in commerce.
       CERCLA regulates the cleanup of chemicals, not the use of 
     chemicals. In particular, designating PFOA and PFOS as 
     hazardous substances under CERCLA will ensure that they are a 
     priority for clean up at military installations.
       PFAS has been confirmed in the groundwater at more than 300 
     military installations where firefighting foams made with 
     PFAS were used, including installations in our communities. 
     We urge you to protect our communities from these toxic 
     forever chemicals by voting to designate PFOA and PFOS as 
     hazardous substances.
           Sincerely,
     Andrea Amico,
       Testing for Pease, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
     Anthony Spaniola,
       Need Our Water (NOW), Oscoda, Michigan.

[[Page H3783]]

  

     Arnie Leriche,
       Wurtsmith Restoration Advisory Board, Oscoda, Michigan.
     Art Schaap,
       Tucumcari Cheese, Clovis, New Mexico.
     Cathy Wusterbarth,
       Need Our Water (NOW), Oscoda, Michigan.
     Cheryl Cail,
       SC Idle No More, SCIAC, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
     Deborah Brown,
       Newburgh Clean Water Project, Newburgh, New York.
     Edward Lawson, Jr.,
       Co-Chair Stewart Air National Guard, Restoration Advisory 
     Board, Newburgh, New York.
     Hope Grosse,
       Buxmont Coalition for Safe Water, Warminster, Pennsylvania.
     Jennifer Vaughan,
       Brock, Texas.
     Jerome M Ensminger,
       CDC Camp Lejeune Community Assistance, Panel, 
     Elizabethtown, North Carolina.
     Jim Holmes,
       Satellite Beach, Florida.
     Joanne Stanton,
       Buxmont Coalition for Safe Water, Warminster, Pennsylvania.
     Kevin Ferrara,
       AFS021 LLC, Woolrich, Pennsylvania.
     Kristen Mello,
       Westfield Residents Advocating For, Themselves (WRAFT), 
     Westfield, Massachusetts.
     Laura Olah,
       Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger, Merrimac, Wisconsin.
     Lisa Cellini,
       Maple Glen, Pennsylvania.
     Mark A. Favors, RN,
       Fountain Valley Clean Water Coalition, Colorado Springs, 
     Colorado.
     Mark D Sanchez-Potter,
       Food and Water Watch, Newburgh, New York.
     Pat Elder,
       Military Poisons, St. Mary's City, Maryland.
     Scott Crumbaugh,
       Pure Aqua Tech, Alma, Michigan.
     Stan McCoy,
       Cedar Crest, New Mexico.
     Stel Bailey,
       Fight 4 Zero, Brevard County, Florida.
     Mitch Freitas,
       FMT, Clovis, New Mexico.
     Laurene Allen,
       Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water, Merrimack, New 
     Hampshire.
     Shaina Kasper,
       Community Action Works Campaigns, Montpelier, Vermont.
     Madison McCoy,
       Albuquerque, New Mexico.
     Suzanne Schaap,
       Hereford, Texas.
     Pamela Miller,
       Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Anchorage, Alaska.
                                  ____



                                                          LCV,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2021.
     Re: Support H.R. 2467, a critical step in protecting our 
         health from toxic chemicals.

     House of Representatives.
       Dear Representative, The League of Conservation Voters 
     (LCV) works to turn environmental values into national 
     priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National 
     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is the nationally accepted yardstick used to rate 
     members of Congress on environmental, public health, and 
     energy issues and is distributed to LCV members, concerned 
     voters, and the media.
       LCV urges you to vote YES on H.R. 2467, the ``PFAS Action 
     Act of 2021,'' which would take important steps in addressing 
     the growing national PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl 
     substances) crisis threatening the health of millions of 
     people across the country.
       PFAS are a class of chemicals used in many everyday 
     consumer products and industrial applications to make water 
     and stain repellant coatings, but communities continue to 
     discover that their drinking water, food, soil, and 
     surroundings have been contaminated with PFAS. Also called 
     ``forever chemicals'' in recognition of their persistence in 
     the environment and our bodies, PFAS have been linked to 
     numerous health problems like certain cancers, thyroid 
     disease, neurological development issues, weakened immune 
     systems, and more. The federal government has been slow to 
     take the actions necessary to protect our communities, 
     especially communities of color who bear a disproportionate 
     impact from this lack of response.
       H.R. 2467 will take critical steps forward that are needed 
     to reduce PFAS use, clean them up, and hold polluters 
     accountable for the damage to our health and the environment. 
     The bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) to set a drinking water standard for PFOA and PFOS 
     within two years, designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous air 
     pollutants, limit industrial discharges of PFAS into 
     waterways, and provide funding for water treatment. 
     Additionally, it would provide consumers with knowledge of 
     products containing PFAS by adding PFAS to the EPA's Safer 
     Choice Program. H.R. 2467 also would designate PFOA and PFOS 
     as hazardous substances and make a determination on other 
     PFAS within five years--key to holding polluters accountable 
     and ensuring that our nation's most contaminated sites are 
     finally cleaned up.
       Again. we urge you to SUPPORT H.R. 2467, which will take 
     critical steps in tackling the PF AS crisis, as well as all 
     pro-environment amendments. We will strongly consider 
     including votes on this legislation in the 2021 Scorecard. If 
     you need more information, please contact a member of our 
     government relations team.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gene Karpinski,
     President.
                                  ____


Environmental Health Sciences--The Real Story Behind PFAS and Congress' 
          Effort To Clean Up Contamination: Op-ed By Jim Jones

       Former EPA official Jim Jones sets the record straight on 
     `the forever chemical' as lawmakers take up the PFAS Action 
     Act Jim Jones
       When the U.S. House of Representatives takes up the 
     bipartisan PFAS Action Act this week, some members of 
     Congress may contend that the bill would ban some uses of 
     PFAS.
       In particular, some members of Congress may argue that 
     designating PFOA and PFOS as ``hazardous substances'' under 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability, and 
     Compensation Act, or CERCLA, will ban the use of these two 
     chemicals from medical devices, semiconductors, lithium 
     batteries and even surgical masks.
       This is not correct.


                 PFAS & PFOS no longer used in commerce

       First, PFOA and PFOS are no longer used in commerce.
       As an Assistant Administrator for the EPA, I was involved 
     in the implementation of a 2006 stewardship agreement with 
     the chemical industry to phase out the use of these two 
     members of this class of fluorinated chemicals. Simply put, 
     as a result of this agreement, PFOA and PFOS are no longer 
     used in these products or take make these products.


                          Hazardous substance

       Second, designation of a chemical as a hazardous substance 
     does not result in a ban of the chemical.
       A quick review of EPA records reveals that nearly 80 
     percent of the chemicals designated as hazardous substances 
     by Congress since the law was passed in 1980 are still used 
     in commerce. That's because CERCLA does not force 
     manufacturers to stop using chemicals. Sulfuric acid, one of 
     the most widely used chemicals in commerce, has been 
     designated as a hazardous substance for more than 40 years. 
     Many other chemicals designated as hazardous substances are 
     used in many products, including medical devices.
       CERCLA regulates the cleanup of chemicals, not the use of 
     chemicals. A different statute, the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act, or TSCA, governs the use of chemicals.


                 Critical step to clean up PFAS & PFOA

       Simply put, no one--not Congress, not the states, not the 
     EPA--is trying to ban PFOA and PFOS by statute.
       So, if Congress is not trying to ban PFOA and PFOS, why 
     then does the bipartisan PFAS Action Act designate them as 
     hazardous substances?
       Designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances is a 
     critical step in efforts to accelerate the clean-up process 
     at contaminated sites, especially Department of Defense 
     installations.


                    Firefighting foam contamination

       PFAS has been confirmed in the groundwater at more than 300 
     military installations where firefighting foams made with 
     PFAS were used. Congress directed the DOD to end the use of 
     these PFAS-based foams in 2020, but efforts to clean up 
     legacy contamination at these bases has not yet been 
     undertaken.
       Designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances will 
     ensure that the DOD treats these contaminants as a priority 
     for cleanup.

[[Page H3784]]

       That's not only reason Congress should enact the PFAS 
     Action Act. While EPA is now treating PFAS as a priority, 
     that has not always been the case. To guard against delay, 
     the PFAS Action Act sets deadlines for EPA to finalize a 
     national drinking water standard for PFOA and PFOS and to 
     place limits on discharges of PFAS into the air and water. 
     The bill also sets a deadline for EPA to decide whether or 
     not to list other PFAS as hazardous substances.


                       PFAS: Time to take action

       A lot is at stake. PFAS has been detected in thousands of 
     drinking water systems and has been linked to serious health 
     problems. No wonder chemical companies and public health 
     groups agree that it is time to take action to address PFAS 
     pollution. Hopefully, members of Congress will agree as well.


                           PFAS: Who to call

       Editors note: The PFAS Action Act of 2021, by Rep. Debbie 
     Dingell, D-Mich., is set to be debated by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives sometime this week.
       To set the record straight and voice concern that the 
     latest science is not being considered as lawmakers debate 
     effort to clean up our environment, contact Republican Reps. 
     Cathy McMorris Rogers and Buddy Carter.
       Jim Jones was the Assistant Administrator for the Office of 
     Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention for the 
     Environmental Protect Agency from 2011 to 2017.
       Views expressed are his own and not necessarily those of 
     Environmental Health Sciences, publisher of EHN.org and 
     DailyClimate.org.

                              {time}  1345

  Madam Speaker, let me just say in closing, the PFAS Action Act is a 
strong and balanced bipartisan bill that will make a real difference 
for countless communities across the country.
  You have heard today that this bill may not be that necessary because 
the administration is already doing things, but I just point out that 
the administration has sent a Statement of Administration Policy saying 
why the President would sign this bill. So obviously, he feels that it 
is necessary.
  And this is a quote from that Statement of Administration Policy that 
says, ``The administration led by the EPA is working to collaborate on 
cross-cutting strategies, advanced new design, develop coordinated 
policies, regulations and communications; and continue engagement with 
affected States, Tribes, communities stakeholders, and H.R. 2467 would 
further enhance those efforts.''
  Madam Speaker, like the administration, I am proud to support this 
bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Each further amendment printed in part B of House Report 117-95 not 
earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 
of House Resolution 535, shall be considered only in the order printed 
in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before 
the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It shall be in order at any time after debate for the chair of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce or his designee to offer amendments en 
bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part B of House Report 
117-95, not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered 
as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.


          Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Tonko of New York

  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 535, I rise to 
offer amendments en bloc.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 
8, 9, and 10, printed in part B of House Report 117-95, offered by Mr. 
Tonko of New York:


           AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. KILDEE OF MICHIGAN

       Page 30, strike lines 13 through 17 and insert the 
     following:

       (5) Information on treatment options, including information 
     relating to water treatment systems certified to the relevant 
     NSF/ANSI American National Standard for drinking water 
     treatment units by a third-party certification body 
     accredited by the ANSI National Accreditation Board.


      AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MS. LEGER FERNANDEZ OF NEW MEXICO

       Page 6, line 4, insert ``and water used for agricultural 
     purposes'' after ``water''.
       Page 31, line 20, insert ``and water used for agricultural 
     purposes'' after ``water''.


            AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MR. LEVIN OF MICHIGAN

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 18. SCHOOL DRINKING WATER TESTING AND FILTRATION GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Part F of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-21 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1466. SCHOOL PFAS TESTING AND FILTRATION GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator shall establish 
     a program to make grants to eligible entities for--
       ``(1) testing for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
     substances in drinking water at schools that is conducted by 
     an entity approved by the Administrator or the applicable 
     State to conduct the testing;
       ``(2) installation, maintenance, and repair of water 
     filtration systems effective for reducing perfluoroalkyl and 
     polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking water at schools that 
     contains a level of any perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl 
     substance that exceeds--
       ``(A) an applicable maximum contaminant level established 
     by the Administrator under section 1412; or
       ``(B) an applicable standard established by the applicable 
     State that is more stringent than the level described in 
     subparagraph (A); or
       ``(3) safe disposal of spent water filtration equipment 
     used to reduce perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances 
     in drinking water at schools.
       ``(b) Guidance; Public Availability.--As a condition of 
     receiving a grant under this section, an eligible entity 
     shall--
       ``(1) expend grant funds in accordance with any applicable 
     State regulation or guidance regarding the reduction of 
     perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking 
     water at schools that is not less stringent than any 
     applicable guidance issued by the Administrator;
       ``(2) make publicly available, including, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, on the website of the eligible entity, a 
     copy of the results of any testing carried out with grant 
     funds received under this section; and
       ``(3) notify parent, teacher, and employee organizations of 
     the availability of the results described in paragraph (2).
       ``(c) Limitation.--An eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this section may use not more than 5 percent of grant 
     funds to pay the administrative costs of carrying out the 
     activities for which the grant was made.
       ``(d) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the 
     term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(1) a local educational agency; or
       ``(2) a State agency that administers a statewide program 
     to test for, remediate, or filter perfluoroalkyl and 
     polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking water.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026, to remain available 
     until expended.''.


        Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez of New York

       Page 31, after line 2, insert the following:
       (c) Access.--The Administrator shall ensure information on 
     the website established under subsection (a) is presented in 
     a manner that provides meaningful access to such information 
     for individuals with limited English proficiency.


         Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Ross of North Carolina

       Page 20, beginning on line 2, strike ``in use by the 
     community water system at the time of application is'' and 
     insert ``that was in use by the community water system on the 
     date of enactment of this section was''.


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. San Nicolas of Guam

       Page 32, beginning on line 13, strike ``Of the amounts made 
     available under this subsection, the Administrator may use 
     funds'' and insert ``To the extent that sufficient 
     applications are received, the Administrator shall use not 
     less than 2 percent of the amounts made available under this 
     subsection''.


          Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Sarbanes of Maryland

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 18. ANALYTICAL REFERENCE STANDARDS FOR PFAS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall require each covered entity to submit 
     to the Administrator an analytical reference standard for 
     each perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance with at 
     least one fully fluorinated carbon atom manufactured by the 
     covered entity after the date that is 10 years prior to the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page H3785]]

       (b) Uses.--The Administrator may--
       (1) use an analytical reference standard submitted under 
     this section only for--
       (A) the development of information, protocols, and 
     methodologies, which may be carried out by an entity 
     determined appropriate by the Administrator; and
       (B) activities relating to the implementation or 
     enforcement of Federal requirements; and
       (2) provide an analytical reference standard submitted 
     under this section to a State, to be used only for--
       (A) the development of information, protocols, and 
     methodologies, which may be carried out by an entity 
     determined appropriate by the State; and
       (B) activities relating to the implementation or 
     enforcement of State requirements.
       (c) Prohibition.--No person receiving an analytical 
     reference standard submitted under this section may use or 
     transfer the analytical reference standard for a commercial 
     purpose.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Covered entity.--The term ``covered entity'' means a 
     manufacturer of a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance 
     with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
       (2) Manufacture; state.--The terms ``manufacture'' and 
     ``State'' have the meanings given those terms in section 3 of 
     the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2602).


           Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Slotkin of Michigan

        Page 21, strike lines 9 through 13 and insert ``than 
     $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026.''.


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Slotkin of Michigan

       Page 30, after line 25, insert the following:
       (8) Information about the health risks associated with 
     consuming water contaminated with PFAS as well as 
     recommendations for individuals who believe they may have 
     consumed such PFAS-contaminated water.


          Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Slotkin of Michigan

       Page 25, beginning on line 21, strike ``pot, pan, cooking 
     utensil, carpet, or rug, clothing, or upholstered furniture, 
     or a stain resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant 
     coating not subject to requirements under section 409 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act'' and insert ``covered 
     product''.
       Page 26, beginning on line 2, strike ``pot, pan, cooking 
     utensil, carpet, rug, clothing, or upholstered furniture, or 
     stain resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant 
     coating'' and insert ``covered product''.
       Page 26, beginning on line 7, strike ``pot, pan, cooking 
     utensil, carpet, rug, clothing, or upholstered furniture, or 
     stain resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant coating 
     not subject to requirements under section 409 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act'' and insert ``covered 
     product''.
       Page 26, beginning on line 14, amend subsection (b) to read 
     as follows:
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Covered product.--The term ``covered product'' means--
       (A) a pot,
       (B) a pan;
       (C) a cooking utensil;
       (D) carpet;
       (E) a rug;
       (F) clothing;
       (G) upholstered furniture;
       (H) a stain resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant 
     coating not subject to requirements under section 409 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
       (I) food packaging material;
       (J) an umbrella;
       (K) luggage; or
       (L) a cleaning product.
       (2) PFAS.--The term ``PFAS'' means a perfluoroalkyl or 
     polyfluoroalkyl substance with at least one fully fluorinated 
     carbon atom.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 535, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) and the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Mrs. Rodgers) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this en bloc of 10 amendments. As 
was done in the 116th Congress, the PFAS Action Act was subject to a 
subcommittee markup, a full committee markup, and debate and amendment 
on the House floor.
  During these processes in the 116th and 117th Congresses, there has 
been an effort to continue to strengthen the proposal at each and every 
stage. The ten amendments included in this en bloc, which includes 
several bipartisan amendments, would build upon this past work and make 
further improvements to the underlying bill.
  Several of the amendments help protect Americans from PFAS in their 
drinking water, especially those relying upon private wells, which 
would not be subject to the national drinking water standard required 
to be developed by this bill.
  We know communicating the risks of PFAS is challenging: What are safe 
levels? What is a reliable testing technique? And what do you do if 
your water is contaminated?
  These amendments would help ensure people have better, clearer, and 
more accessible information on this and other issues. This en bloc also 
includes amendments that would increase grant funding to community 
water systems and ensure all communities dealing with PFAS 
contamination can access these funds, including insular territories. 
And it would establish a new grant program to support PFAS testing and 
filtration at schools.
  We know the cost of PFAS remediation can be significant. Ensuring 
these costs do not fall squarely upon the households that rely upon 
these water systems, who are not responsible for the contaminations, 
should be a high priority of this effort. More Federal funding can help 
in this regard.
  Finally, the en bloc would expand the PFAS-free labeling program to 
cover food package material, luggage, and cleaning products. This will 
allow Americans to make certain that they have more informed choices on 
the products they choose to purchase. Overall, these are good 
improvements to the bill, and I do not believe they should be 
controversial.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage Members to support the en bloc, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in 
opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who has been outspoken on this issue.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment 
to H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act.
  I thank my colleague, Representative Fitzpatrick, for joining in this 
bipartisan proposal. PFAS chemicals, as we have been hearing today, are 
harmful, manmade forever chemicals that are persistent, bio-
accumulative, and toxic.
  These chemicals, which threaten more than 100 million Americans, pose 
serious risks to human health, including cancer, immune disorders, and 
reproductive system maladies.
  The PFAS Action Act will take critical steps to protect all Americans 
from PFAS chemicals by helping clean up contaminated sites under the 
Superfund program, limiting the exposure of PFAS chemicals, and 
establishing a health-protective drinking water standard that limits 
the amount of PFAS in our water systems.
  My amendment would strengthen the PFAS Action Act by expanding EPA's 
ability to use the best-available science to address PFAS risks by 
requiring manufacturers to provide reference standards for all PFAS 
chemicals. This effort will help reduce PFAS pollution and keep our 
families safe.
  My amendment will provide the EPA with critical data about PFAS 
chemicals and help the agency better identify these toxic substances in 
our communities.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the 
underlying bill and vote in favor of this important legislation.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib), who, along with Mrs. Dingell, has really brought 
great focus to this issue in committee.
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I still remember how I felt when I learned 
that one of the worst PFAS sites in the entire country was discovered 
right in my backyard in my district at the Marathon petroleum refinery. 
Shock, horror, and a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach just 
happened instantly.
  I called Congresswoman Dingell, because that site borders our 
districts. And it is a community that continues to struggle with air 
quality and clean water. That ZIP Code, where Marathon Oil Refinery is 
now, that is the most polluted ZIP Code in all of the State of 
Michigan. So we wonder why the forever chemical was found right there 
and how it is impacting people's public health.
  We are finding in Michigan, as folks know, where we lead in the 
country in

[[Page H3786]]

PFAS testing, if you start looking for these toxic forever chemicals, 
you are going to find them.
  Madam Speaker, we have an urgent crisis in front of us that requires 
swift and decisive action. So it is great news that the House is now 
considering passing PFAS Action Act of 2021 today.
  The bill will require EPA to take urgent PFAS action by requiring 
site cleanups, identifying health risks, and developing a drinking 
water standard to keep our community safe. We cannot wait another day 
to start taking strong action to protect our residents from forever 
chemicals.

  As a Member of Congress, I was shocked--I think many of my residents 
were shocked--that we weren't protected from PFAS in the Clean Air Act. 
Today, we, at least, get closer to changing that. Again, our residents 
deserve to live without being poisoned.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who has great concern for this issue.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, PFAS chemicals are life-
threatening. They are forever chemicals and need to be cleaned up. We 
will act today to regulate these chemicals and protect public health.
  Highland Dairy is a family-owned operation that has served the 
eastern part of my district for four generations. In 2018, Highland 
learned that PFAS from the nearby Air Force base leaked into the shared 
aquifer that watered the grass which fed the cows. The PFAS 
contamination poisoned the cows and the dairy could not sell the milk 
or the cows. Highland is on the brink of disaster merely by being a 
neighbor to the Air Force base. We cannot allow PFAS to work itself 
into our food system.
  Madam Speaker, my amendment requires the EPA to consider the risk 
PFAS poses to water used for agricultural purposes, like that at 
Highland.
  Madam Speaker, the EPA's work must be inclusive of farmers, rural 
America, and the food we eat. I urge my colleagues to adopt the 
amendment and pass this bill.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I stand, again, in strong support of the en 
bloc amendment and, certainly, the measure to which we are amending.
  Basically, we have here an opportunity to address ills that we see 
across America, contaminants, forever dangerous elements that cause all 
sorts of diseases and destruction, and it is important for us to move 
forward, I think, to take responsibility and make certain that these 
forever chemicals that don't break down, that cause cancer and other 
diseases, are addressed.
  We move forward with the opportunity here, assigning the great 
responsibilities to EPA so that we have a strong outcome. I think the 
amendment makes the bill even stronger. I have seen situations in my 
given region of Upstate New York where communities have been impacted.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage everyone to support the amendment and the 
bill at hand, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, we all believe that we must have clean water. 
Unfortunately, this is not a thoughtful or scientific approach.
  H.R. 2467 is opposed by a broad diverse, collection of interests that 
are concerned about its aggressive, over-the-top, unforgiving, and 
simultaneous mandates, obligations, and expenses.
  These include: The United States Conference of Mayors; National 
League of Cities; National Association of Counties; American Water 
Works Association; Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; National 
Association of Water Companies; National Association of Clean Water 
Agencies; National Rural Water Association; Association of California 
Water Agencies; The Water Environment Federation; American Chemistry 
Council; American Coatings Association; American Forest and Paper 
Association; American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers; American 
Petroleum Institute; Flexible Packaging Association; National 
Association of Chemical Distributors; National Association for Surface 
Finishing; National Council of Textile Organizations; National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association; National Association of Surface 
Finishing; National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers; Plastics 
Industry Association; United States Chamber of Commerce.
  Madam Speaker, I include these letters in the Record.

                                                    July 21, 2021.
     Re Opposition to H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021.

       Dear Representative: On behalf of organizations 
     representing the nation's municipal governments and drinking 
     water and wastewater systems, we write in opposition to H.R. 
     2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021. While we support taking 
     action to reduce the prevalence of PFAS in the environment, 
     the legislation would run counter to the important ``polluter 
     pays'' principle that guides Superfund site cleanups under 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act (CERCLA), and would step back from the 
     transparent, science-based process of regulating drinking 
     water contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 
     and clean water operations under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 
     We urge you to vote against this legislation in its current 
     form.
       H.R. 2467 would require EPA to designate PFOA and PFOS as 
     hazardous substances under CERCLA within one year, and to 
     make a determination on designating all remaining PFAS within 
     five years. These hazardous substance designations are 
     intended to make sure polluters are held responsible for 
     paying for the cleanup of contaminated Superfund sites, which 
     we support. But the bill as currently structured would also 
     mean that municipal drinking water and wastewater utility 
     ratepayers could face staggering financial liability to clean 
     up PFAS that was legally disposed of following the water 
     treatment process. We believe water and wastewater utilities, 
     when acting in accordance with all applicable laws, should be 
     provided an exemption to protect the utilities and water 
     customers from bearing the costs of cleanup.
       In the case of drinking water systems, if PFAS is removed 
     from source water in order to comply with a drinking water 
     regulatory standard, the utility then becomes the possessor 
     of filtration media that contain those PFAS. The utility must 
     then dispose of these PFAS-laden filters, typically by 
     sending them to a hazardous waste landfill in accordance with 
     applicable law. However, should that landfill ever become a 
     Superfund site, then the water utility could be treated as a 
     PFAS polluter--and be responsible for a portion of the 
     cleanup costs--forcing local ratepayers to cover the cleanup 
     bill after they already paid to remove the contaminants from 
     their source water.
       Wastewater utilities would face similar liability through 
     no fault of their own because they receive PFAS chemicals 
     through the raw influent that arrives at the treatment plant. 
     This heterogenous influent can come from domestic, 
     industrial, and commercial sources and may contain PFAS 
     constituents ranging from trace to higher concentrations, 
     depending on the nature of the dischargers to the sewer 
     system. In any case, the influent is not generated by the 
     utility, but the utility is responsible for treating it under 
     scientific and regulatory authorities provided for under the 
     CWA. Because wastewater utilities cannot halt treating 
     continual industrial or domestic wastewater inputs which 
     likely contain PFAS in some concentration, they should be 
     protected through a targeted CERCLA liability exemption.
       It is particularly disappointing that H.R. 2467 would offer 
     a CERCLA liability shield to airports that release PFAS into 
     the environment through their use of firefighting foam. It 
     defies logic that the legislation fails to extend that same 
     liability protection to water and wastewater systems that 
     have no choice but to dispose of PFAS found in water 
     supplies, and whose ratepayers would be ultimately 
     responsible for all of the costs associated with a Superfund 
     site cleanup. As passive receivers of PFAS, water and 
     wastewater utilities should be afforded the same liability 
     protections that the legislation would award airports in 
     order to keep CERCLA liability focused on the corporations 
     that created the pollution in the first place. Our 
     organizations have repeatedly asked Congress for CERCLA 
     liability shields in the legislation similar to those for 
     airports but have been rebuffed.
       Additionally, many of our organizations oppose provisions 
     in H.R. 2467 that would amend SDWA by requiring EPA to 
     promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for 
     PFOA and PFOS within two years, establishing a unique and 
     expedited drinking water contaminant regulatory process for 
     other chemicals in the PFAS family, and eliminating EPA's 
     discretion on whether to issue drinking water health 
     advisories related to PFAS. In sum, these changes would 
     undermine the development of transparent, science-based 
     drinking water standards, and would place undue cost burdens 
     on our communities and ratepayers while leading to premature 
     regulatory decisions that lack public review and scientific 
     validity.
       While we share the goal of addressing PFAS contamination 
     and holding accountable those entities that are responsible 
     releasing it into the environment, H.R. 2467

[[Page H3787]]

     would instead assign environmental cleanup liability to 
     innocent water systems and their customers. We have no choice 
     but to oppose the legislation and encourage you to vote 
     against it in its current form.
           Sincerely,
         American Council of Engineering Companies, Association of 
           California Water Agencies, California Association of 
           Sanitation Agencies, National Association of Counties, 
           National League of Cities, National Water Resources 
           Association, Water Environment Federation, American 
           Water Works Association, Association of Metropolitan 
           Water Agencies, National Association of Clean Water 
           Agenices, National Association of Water Companies, 
           National Rural Water Association, The U.S. Conference 
           of Mayors.
                                  ____



                                                June 22, 2021.

     Hon. Frank Pallone,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, 
     On behalf of the nation's mayors, cities and counties, we 
     write to express our concerns with the Assistance, Quality, 
     and Affordability Act of 2021 (AQUA Act, H.R. 3291) and the 
     PFAS Action Act of 2021 (H.R. 2467). Our organizations 
     strongly support provisions in H.R. 3291 that would 
     reauthorize the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and 
     authorize grants to support lead pipe replacement and PFAS 
     treatment. However, the legislation also includes provisions 
     that would require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) to set National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for 
     PFAS and other chemicals and regulate PFAS under the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act (CERCLA). These provisions could have 
     unintended consequences for local governments and place an 
     undue cost burden on communities and our residents.
       In general, our organizations support provisions in the 
     1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which 
     require that drinking water standards be based on sound 
     science, public health protection and occurrence of 
     contaminants in drinking water supplies at levels of public 
     health concern to reduce risk while balancing costs. Congress 
     should not circumvent this process in any way for select 
     contaminants.
       Moreover, CERCLA ensures that hazardous substances that may 
     endanger public health or the environment are cleaned up by 
     holding responsible parties financially liable. Local 
     governments, including municipal airports and fire 
     departments, which were required by federal law to use 
     firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals, and drinking 
     water and wastewater utilities and municipal landfills, which 
     serve as receivers of PFAS chemicals and did not cause or 
     contribute to contamination, should not be held liable for 
     PFAS contamination or cleanup costs.
       The nation is just emerging from a deadly pandemic that has 
     left local governments and many of our residents and small 
     businesses reeling financially. Our communities need 
     financial assistance to address our drinking water 
     infrastructure challenges, but we can not absorb costly 
     unfunded mandates that will become an additional burden to 
     local budgets and our residents. While we acknowledge the 
     public health risks associated with PFAS chemicals and urge 
     Congress and the Administration to examine PFAS contamination 
     holistically and to take comprehensive action to address the 
     problem, the federal government should avoid passing costs 
     onto local governments and ratepayers for PFAS treatment and 
     cleanup.
       We agree with the sentiment outlined in the comment letter 
     from the American Water Works Association, Association of 
     Metropolitan Water Agencies, National Association of Water 
     Companies and the National Rural Water Association to the 
     House Energy and Commerce Committee on June 15, which raises 
     similar concerns.
       Specifically, we offer the following comments on the AQUA 
     Act and the PFAS Action Act of 2021:
       Local governments, water utilities and their ratepayers 
     should not be held financially liable under CERCLA for PFAS 
     contamination. CERCLA was established to make polluters and 
     manufacturers of these pollutants pay for the contamination 
     they caused. At a minimum, the legislation should extend a 
     similar CERCLA liability exemption to local governments that 
     is offered to airports.
       We are opposed to Congress modifying EPA's impartial 
     contaminant regulatory process on an ad-hoc basis to 
     establish a unique and expedited regulatory process for 
     specific chemicals. The legislation would require EPA to rush 
     to finalize drinking water regulations for PFOA, PFOS, and 
     other chemicals in the PFAS family within two years of the 
     bill's enactment. We believe that an expedited time frame 
     would come at the expense of public transparency and 
     scientific rigor and would lead to inequitable regulations 
     that force the lowest-income water ratepayers to shoulder a 
     greater proportion of the new compliance costs that are 
     passed on by their water systems.
       Repealing section 1412(b)(6) of the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act, a key provision that allows EPA the opportunity to 
     ensure that the public health benefits of a drinking water 
     regulation are reasonably balanced with the compliance costs 
     that water system ratepayers will incur, will directly shift 
     the burden to pay for these upgrades to local governments. 
     Under current law, if EPA determines that the benefits of a 
     proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL) do not justify the 
     costs of compliance, section 1412(b)(6) gives EPA the option, 
     following notice and opportunity for public comment, to 
     promulgate an MCL ``that maximizes health risk reduction 
     benefits at a cost that is justified by the benefits.''
       The PFAS infrastructure grant program as proposed in H.R. 
     2467 includes the limitation of eligible treatment 
     technologies to those that are certified to remove ``all 
     detectable amounts'' of PFAS from water supplies is 
     admirable. We are concerned about this requirement, however, 
     since no technology is available today that can reliably meet 
     this standard.
       As it pertains to the replacement of lead service lines, 
     there is language included in the grant authorization that 
     would require ``any recipient of funds . . . shall offer to 
     replace any privately owned portion of the lead service line 
     at no cost to the private owner.'' This language is 
     potentially problematic for several reasons. First, as the 
     water associations pointed out in their letter, the language 
     could be interpreted to require any water system that 
     receives any amount of program funds to permanently pay for 
     all future private-side lead service line replacement costs, 
     even after this federal grant assistance has been exhausted. 
     Second, we are also concerned that authorization does not 
     mean full appropriations at the levels necessary to replace 
     all private residences' lead service lines. Including this 
     language could potentially hamper local government long-term 
     efforts to develop a program to replace all lead service 
     lines. Finally, we are concerned that potential new EPA 
     testing and replacement rules will trigger lead pipe 
     replacement without the necessary Congressional funds. For 
     these reasons, we agree with the water associations' 
     recommendation--that the legislation should specify that 
     ``none of the funds made available'' through this program may 
     be spent in a manner inconsistent with conditions specified 
     by Congress.
       Thank you for considering the local government perspective 
     as you move this legislation forward. We look forward to 
     working with you to address our nation's drinking water 
     needs. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to 
     contact our staff: Judy Sheahan (USCM) Carolyn Berndt (NLC) 
     or Adam Pugh (NACo).
     Sincerely,
     Tom Cochran,
       CEO & Executive Director, The U.S. Conference of Mayors.
     Clarence E. Anthony,
       CEO & Executive Director, National League of Cities.
     Matthew D. Chase,
       CEO & Executive Director, National Association of Counties.
                                  ____

                                                     July 2, 2021.
       Dear Members of the House of Representatives: We, the 
     undersigned organizations, strongly oppose H.R. 2467, the 
     ``PFAS Action Act.'' Our organizations are committed to 
     ensuring the safety of our employees and the communities 
     where we live and operate. This legislation would delay and 
     complicate contamination remediation issues.
       Product safety provides the foundation of consumer trust, 
     and our members devote significant resources to achieve this 
     effort. Every member of the value chain has an important part 
     to play to ensure the products consumers use are safe and 
     sustainable. We remain committed to advancing effective, 
     science-based solutions to PFAS challenges.
       This spring, we sent a letter to EPA Administrator Michael 
     Regan regarding possible designation of PFOA and PFOS as 
     hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). As stated 
     then, CERCLA is not an effective policy tool to fulfill the 
     goal of accelerating cleanup in communities.
       Moreover, EPA has existing authority to meet the intent of 
     this legislation and should be provided the time, resources, 
     and flexibility to make its determination regarding how best 
     to address PFAS concerns. This approach should be made with 
     guidance from the new PFAS Council review process, consistent 
     with sound science and accepted principles for protecting 
     public health and the environment.
       Finally, a bill of H.R. 2467's magnitude and complexity, 
     including the proposed sector-based wastewater effluent 
     guidelines, deserves the opportunity to be examined at length 
     in a committee setting. Many major stakeholders, including 
     EPA, the Department of Defense, other federal agencies and 
     states have all taken significant actions to address PFAS 
     since the last time we had a venue to discuss within a 
     committee.
       We oppose the PFAS Action Act and ask that the House of 
     Representatives do so as

[[Page H3788]]

     well. We stand ready to assist you throughout the legislative 
     process and engage on a better way to move forward on this 
     issue.
           Sincerely.
       American Chemistry Council, American Coatings Association, 
     American Council of Engineering Companies, American Forest & 
     Paper Association, American Fuel and Petrochemical 
     Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, Flexible 
     Packaging Association, National Association of Chemical 
     Distributors, National Association of Printing Ink 
     Manufacturers, National Association for Surface Finishing, 
     Plastics Industry Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
                                  ____

                                                    June 15, 2021.
     Hon. Paul Tonko,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. David McKinley,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
         Change, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member McKinley: We, the 
     undersigned organizations, strongly oppose H.R. 2467, the 
     ``PFAS Action Act.'' Our organizations are committed to 
     ensuring the safety of our employees and the communities 
     where we live and operate. Product safety provides the 
     foundation of consumer trust, and our members devote 
     significant resources to achieve this effort. Every member of 
     the value chain has an important part to play to ensure the 
     products consumers use are safe and sustainable.
       With these goals in mind, earlier this spring we sent a 
     letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan expressing our 
     concerns regarding possible designation of PFOA and PFOS as 
     hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). As stated 
     then, CERCLA is not an effective policy tool to fulfill the 
     goal of accelerating cleanup in communities and may delay 
     cleanups already in process.
       EPA has existing authority to meet the intent of this 
     legislation and should be provided the time, resources, and 
     flexibility to make its determination whether and how to 
     address PFAS. This approach should be made under the new PFAS 
     Council, consistent with sound science, and to protect human 
     health and the environment.
       Finally, a bill of H.R. 2467's magnitude and importance 
     deserves a hearing before going to markup. The subcommittee 
     has not held a hearing on PFAS for approximately two years. 
     Since that time, EPA, the Department of Defense, other 
     federal agencies, and the states have all taken significant 
     actions to address PFAS challenges. The subcommittee should 
     hear from those government agencies, the business community, 
     and other key stakeholders before members decide on the 
     proper scope and substance of any legislation. Moreover, the 
     committee has gained many new members who deserve an 
     opportunity to hear from such stakeholders before making 
     policy decisions.
       We oppose the PFAS Action Act and ask the members of your 
     subcommitte to do so as well. We stand ready to assist you 
     throughout the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
       Agricultural Retailers Association, Airlines for America, 
     American Chemistry Council, American Coatings Association, 
     American Forest and Paper Association, American Fuel and 
     Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, 
     Flexible Packaging Association, National Cattlemen's Beef 
     Association, National Association of Chemical Distributors, 
     National Association of Manufacturers, National Association 
     for Surface Finishing, National Council of Textile 
     Organizations, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 
     National Oilseed Processors Association, National Mining 
     Association, Plastics Industry Association, U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce.

                              {time}  1400

  The amendments en bloc is a collection of 10 individual amendments. 
In fact, some parts of it are indicative of the underlying bill. It is 
provisions you don't need a bill to accomplish because EPA is already 
doing them.
  Other parts of this amendment highlight, for me, why the overall bill 
should be opposed, and many do oppose it. Let me give you some 
examples.
  The amendments en bloc contains a provision that would create a 
website at EPA containing household well water testing. Ironically, EPA 
already has that website. For those interested, it is www.epa.gov/
privatewells.
  Among its existing resources are items called for in these 
amendments: PFAS testing, health effects discussion, and third-party 
certification recommendations. Any other issues could be solved by 
updating this website.
  The amendments en bloc also doubles down on certain consumer product 
problems the underlying bill creates and then kicks it up a notch. It 
adds luggage, umbrellas, and food packaging materials to section 10's 
expansion of a program never designed for articles and would force 
significant changes and administrative effort.
  It also requires every manufacturer or importer of a PFAS chemical in 
the last 10 years to send a sample of it to EPA and to each State. 
Notwithstanding that this could make EPA subject to hazardous waste 
storage requirements under section 9, EPA is already compelling 
comprehensive toxicity testing from the same people for the same 
ultimate purpose under section 3 of the bill.
  The amendments en bloc authorizes funding for things that appear to 
be covered already. It increases the funding authorization in section 7 
for grants by 600 percent. That is a hike before we even know how well 
the program works or if the money is needed.
  It also provides reimbursement to communities that installed 
equipment to remove PFAS from drinking water when those upgrades were 
made without expectation of Federal money.
  The amendments en bloc creates, similar to lead, a Federal grant 
program for PFAS testing at schools, drinking water filters, and 
disposal efforts. But there is nothing to suggest PFAS enters drinking 
water like lead, and the used filters are not protected from Superfund 
liability if they are safely disposed.
  I wish we would take the time to make the real reforms that would 
improve this bill--amendments like the one offered by Mr. Bilirakis to 
protect the bill from harming semiconductor production in the United 
States of America. PFAS are essential to etching and cleaning 
semiconductors, and we don't want this bill to prevent the formation of 
a domestic supply chain in the United States of America.
  I am also thinking about bipartisan amendments offered by Dr. Bucshon 
and Mr. Schrader to protect PFAS used in FDA-approved drugs and 
devices. Pediatric and adult heart patients have PFAS to thank for 
stents and heart valves that keep them alive today.
  Mr. Carter, too, had an amendment to save chlorine production from 
extinction in this country. There are only three ways to make it: 
mercury, which is being phased out; asbestos, which EPA has considered 
banning; and PFAS. Coming out of a pandemic, killing chlorine should be 
the last thing we are trying to do.
  Mr. Crenshaw also had an amendment to protect the use of PFAS in 
protective gear. Crime is surging in our cities. Now more than ever, 
our police personnel and military should not be put in danger because 
the chemicals necessary to keep them safe are a casualty of this bill.
  These amendments were not made in order. The Congressional Budget 
Office, CBO, score of H.R. 2467 was indeterminate, stating its 
administration would cost the Federal Government $280 million, but it 
is impossible to know how it impacts Federal spending.
  No matter how well-intended or well-meaning this bill may be, its 
impacts are broad, unknown, and depend on things Congress hasn't yet 
established and must think through.
  The amendments en bloc does not improve this bill, and I oppose it 
and urge others to do the same.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 535, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 195, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 215]

                               YEAS--226

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig

[[Page H3789]]


     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meijer
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Armstrong
     Carter (GA)
     Cheney
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Guest
     Higgins (LA)
     Lucas
     Newhouse
     Young

                              {time}  1434

  So the en bloc amendments were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Amodei (Balderson)
     Buchanan (LaHood)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Fulcher (Simpson)
     Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
     Granger (Calvert)
     Grijalva (Stanton)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Jones (Williams (GA))
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Rogers (KY) (Fleischmann)
     Ruiz (Correa)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Salazar (Cammack)
     Stewart (Curtis)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Van Drew
     (Reschenthaler)
     Wilson (FL)
     (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question is ordered on the 
bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Crenshaw moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2467, to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Crenshaw is as follows:
       In section 2--
       (1) redesignate subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) 
     and (f), respectively; and
       (2) insert after subsection (c) the following:
       (d) Protective Gear.--No person 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 is related to the manufacture of individual 
     protective equipment, including body armor, that is designed 
     to protect members of the United States military, law 
     enforcement personnel, or first responders (including 
     Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal law 
     enforcement personnel and first responders) from--
       (1) threats posed by ballistic, edged, chemical, 
     biological, or other weaponry; or
       (2) hazards posed by extreme weather.
       Page 9, line 14, strike ``For a period'' and insert 
     ``Except as provided in paragraph (3), for a period''.
       Page 10, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(3) Protective gear.--This subsection shall not apply 
     with respect to a notice described in paragraph (1) that is 
     related to the manufacture of individual protective 
     equipment, including body armor, that is designed to protect 
     members of the United States military, law enforcement 
     personnel, or first responders (including Federal, State, 
     local, territorial, and Tribal law enforcement personnel and 
     first responders) from threats posed by ballistic, edged, 
     chemical, biological, or other weaponry, or hazards posed by 
     extreme weather.''.
       Section 8(b) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``In revising such list, the Administrator shall exclude from 
     any category or subcategory so listed a source whose 
     emissions of such a substance are related to the manufacture 
     of individual protective equipment, including body armor, 
     that is designed to protect members of the United States 
     military, law enforcement personnel, or first responders 
     (including Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal law 
     enforcement personnel and first responders) from threats 
     posed by ballistic, edged, chemical, biological, or other 
     weaponry, or hazards posed by extreme weather.''.
       Page 25, after line 13, insert the following:
       ``(3) Exemption.--Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply with 
     respect to individual protective equipment, including body 
     armor, that--
       ``(A) contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
     substances; and
       ``(B) is designed to protect members of the United States 
     military, law enforcement personnel, or first responders 
     (including Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal law 
     enforcement personnel and first responders) from--
       ``(i) threats posed by ballistic, edged, chemical, 
     biological, or other weaponry; or
       ``(ii) hazards posed by extreme weather.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 204, 
nays 218, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 216]

                               YEAS--204

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon

[[Page H3790]]


     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--218

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Armstrong
     Carter (GA)
     Cheney
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Graves (LA)
     Greene (GA)
     Grothman
     Higgins (LA)

                              {time}  1458

  Ms. JAYAPAL, Messrs. O'HALLERAN, and KILDEE changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I was delayed in a meeting. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 216.


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

  
  July 21, 2021, on page H3790, the following appeared: Mr. 
GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I was delayed in a meeting. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 214.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. GROTHMAN. 
Madam Speaker, I was delayed in a meeting. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 216.


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


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Amodei (Balderson)
     Buchanan (LaHood)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Fulcher (Simpson)
     Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
     Granger (Calvert)
     Grijalva (Stanton)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Jones (Williams (GA))
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Rogers (KY) (Fleischmann)
     Ruiz (Correa)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Salazar (Cammack)
     Stewart (Curtis)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Van Drew
     (Reschenthaler)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
     Young (Malliotakis)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LONG. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 183, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 217]

                               YEAS--241

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jacobs (NY)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Mace
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Mast
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meijer
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--183

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole

[[Page H3791]]


     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Issa
     Jackson
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Valadao
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Armstrong
     Brady
     Carter (GA)
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Good (VA)
     Higgins (LA)

                              {time}  1519

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 217, ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 216, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 215.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Amodei (Balderson)
     Buchanan (LaHood)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Fulcher (Simpson)
     Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
     Granger (Calvert)
     Grijalva (Stanton)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Jones (Williams (GA))
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Rogers (KY) (Fleischmann)
     Ruiz (Correa)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Salazar (Cammack)
     Stewart (Curtis)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Van Drew
     (Reschenthaler)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________