Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 128 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)

[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

[[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

____________________