Providing for Consideration of H.R. Pfas Action Act of 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 779 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 779
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 535) to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-45, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a structured rule for House Resolution 779, providing for consideration of H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Pallone, makes in order 22 amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to start the new year and the new congressional session with our first legislative action being a rule for a comprehensive, bipartisan bill to address a threat to our constituents, both across Pennsylvania and across the country.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, have been manufactured and used in the United States for over 60 years. These chemicals are found in everyday products like food packaging materials, cleaning products, nonstick cookware, stain- and water- resistant materials, firefighting foams, and more.
There are thousands of PFAS chemicals, but two of the most common and most notorious are PFOA and PFOS, substances used to make Teflon and Scotchgard, respectively.
PFAS are known as forever chemicals. They do not break down, and they remain in the environment and other living organisms for decades. PFAS chemicals are made of one of the strongest carbon bonds possible. As a result, these substances are extremely persistent in the environment and are able to be absorbed by humans and wildlife.
PFAS have long been linked with various forms of cancer, including kidney, liver, and pancreatic cancers; weakened immune systems; low birth weight; infertility; impaired childhood development; and other diseases.
Not only are these substances resilient and harmful, but they are now found in the blood of over 99 percent of Americans.
PFAS contaminate our environment in a variety of ways, particularly through landfills and wastewater runoff sites. Once these chemicals are introduced into an area, they leach into the soil and groundwater, becoming immediate threats to surrounding life.
Analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that more than 1,500 drinking water systems in the United States may be contaminated with PFAS, affecting up to 110 million Americans from drinking water alone.
In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 17 sites have been identified as containing PFAS contamination. Some of these sites are water utilities and civilian airports, but additional sites like waste incinerators were included as well. People living in close proximity to waste incinerators already face a host of environmental risk factors from polluted air and water. Additional contaminants from PFAS adds insult to injury for these neglected and often economically distressed areas.
The Department of Defense has identified over 400 military sites across the U.S. that use or were suspected of having used PFAS in firefighting foam. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, is home to two of these former bases where firefighting foam leached into the groundwater after years of use. These bases are no longer active, but the effects from PFAS will be felt by residents for generations to come.
My friend and colleague, Congresswoman Madeleine Dean, a founding member of the PFAS Task Force, helped secure a grant to study the health effects of PFAS contamination in this area. I commend the work that she is doing to protect her constituents and to ensure that they have a water supply that they can rely on for generations to come.
The fact of the matter is that the Federal Government has known about the dangers presented by PFAS for years. The chemical industry has known for even longer and, unsurprisingly, has fought tooth and nail against efforts to regulate their distribution and use.
Despite this, the only action taken against PFAS was in 2006, when the EPA instituted a voluntary phaseout of PFOA and PFOS instead of instituting any stronger measures. Recently, the EPA has declined to promulgate standards on PFAS despite acknowledging the dangers they present to human and environmental health.
Just as foxes shouldn't guard the henhouse, chemical companies shouldn't be trusted to regulate themselves. Research on the additional thousands of PFAS outside of PFOS and PFOA can and should continue, but thus far, all research has confirmed that PFAS are harmful.
We would not eat food that could potentially cause us harm without understanding the full range of ramifications first. Why should we put those risks on our children without first knowing how PFAS will affect them?
H.R. 535 will provide protections to our communities in the immediate term and ensure that there are enforceable standards in place for the long term. This bill would require the EPA to use tools under existing environmental statutes to require cleanup of sites contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, set air emission limits, prohibit unsafe incineration of PFAS, and limit the introduction of new PFAS chemicals into the market.
Further, the PFAS Action Act will limit human exposure to PFAS by requiring a drinking water standard for PFAS that protects public health, particularly regarding the health of vulnerable groups like infants, children, and pregnant women.
Finally, the bill takes the necessary step of designating all PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
I would like to recognize and thank my colleague, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, for her hard work and tireless efforts to keep Americans safe from PFAS, as well as Congressman Fred Upton and the other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee whose bills were incorporated into H.R. 535.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a December 5, 2019, New York Times article, entitled, ``Government Studying Widely Used Chemicals Linked to Health Issues.'' [From the New York Times, Dec. 5, 2019] Government Studying Widely Used Chemicals Linked to Health Issues (By Eric Lipton)
Warminster, Pa.--Two decades after concern emerged about a class of chemicals used in everything from Teflon pans to firefighting foam, the federal government has started the first in a series of detailed studies of the impact the chemicals have had on human health.
The goal is to determine what role the chemicals, known generally as PFAS, play in a long list of health conditions including thyroid, kidney, liver, cardiovascular and autoimmune diseases, among other ailments. The studies will involve thousands of adults and children in eight communities nationwide, and the findings will help determine just how extensive of a cleanup is necessary at sites where groundwater or drinking water supplies have been contaminated.
This is hardly an academic matter in communities like Warminster, a suburb of Philadelphia, where Hope Martindell Grosse grew up just across the street from the now-defunct Naval Air Warfare Center. The base is one of about 200 military installations around the country where groundwater has been contaminated by the chemicals, including at least 24 where drinking water was affected.
Ms. Grosse and several members of her family have had a series of health problems, including autoimmune disease, cancer and other unusual conditions, such as a missing set of adult teeth in both of her daughters.
Her childhood home was just 25 feet from the Navy base and for decades she and her family consumed water from a well in their front yard. Even after the house was connected to a municipal water system, the water coming to the house was still contaminated because the local supplier realized only about three years ago that it was also using groundwater contaminated by PFAS. The utility was then forced to buy water from outside the area.
Earlier tests of about 200 area residents have already confirmed high levels of PFAS in the bloodstream of people who lived near the former Warminster base and a second nearby military facility, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove.
``My greatest concern is what this means for my children,'' Ms. Grosse said. ``I know my kids have this chemical in them.''
But what remains unclear is how strong the association is between PFAS exposure and various health ailments.
It is a question that federal scientists and researchers hope to answer, at least in part, with this first multisite health effects study. It will be conducted in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York and California, in communities where drinking water is known to have been contaminated.
In total about 8,000 adults and 2,500 children who lived in areas where drinking water was known to have been contaminated with PFAS will have blood and urine sampled and medical histories checked. The initial round of $7 million in grants to fund the work has already been distributed.
The first study, in the Pease, N.H., area, is underway and enrolling participants.
Delays in settling on and approving research protocol for the work in the seven other locations mean that actual tests on participants will most likely be put off until at least the end of next year. But researchers at some of those sites have started to collect historical information on drinking water contamination.
In most of the locations, the study will not specifically look for apparent correlations between exposure to PFAS and cancer, because the sample size is not large enough to produce statistically significant results, federal officials said.
But in Pennsylvania, researchers will be gathering data on hundreds of thousands of cancer cases in the area to see if there appears to be a high incidence of certain cancers among those exposed to the contaminated water, said Resa M. Jones, a Temple University epidemiologist who will be overseeing this work.
Public concern about the chemicals first emerged in the late 1990s in communities including Parkersburg, W.Va., which was home to a DuPont chemical manufacturing plant where one form of PFAS was made, after a series of illnesses emerged among area residents and even farm animals.
The discovery of this threat in West Virginia, and the struggle to get DuPont to cover medical costs, are the subject of a new movie, called ``Dark Waters.''
Medical studies completed around 2012 in Parkersburg ultimately confirmed a ``probable link'' between the exposure to PFAS chemicals and testicular cancer, kidney cancer and thyroid disease, among other conditions. Animal studies have also suggested links between exposure and health problems in humans, federal authorities say.
Since then, certain versions of the chemical--there are thousands of different formulas--have been removed from the market, including two that were once widely used in nonstick cooking pans and stain-resistant clothes. But there remain concerns that some of the replacement chemicals may cause some of the same illnesses.
The new research now getting underway--which was authorized by Congress through the Defense Department after a bipartisan push led by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire--will focus on exposures that are occurring outside any workplace, due to exposure to contaminated drinking water.
``This is an attempt to produce some important knowledge that can be useful not only for a particular community but more generally across the United States, in a large population,'' he said.
The Environmental Protection Agency is separately also moving toward establishing federal cleanup standards for contaminated areas and also to decide on what the national safety limit for PFAS-related chemicals in drinking water should be, questions the agency has been considering for at least a decade.
Robert A. Bilott, an Ohio lawyer who has spent two decades pursing litigation against PFAS manufacturers including DuPont, said the research was a welcome step toward developing a better understanding of the health consequences of PFAS. But he said he remained determined to push the manufacturers to pay for an even larger study that would look in a more comprehensive way for correlations between PFAS exposure and cancer.
``I am glad to see the federal government is stepping in and recognizing more needs to be done,'' said Mr. Bilott, whose story is the focus of the ``Dark Waters'' film and who has also written a book on his two-decade legal fight on the issue. ``But I don't want it to be a shield against more comprehensive studies that need to be done.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing is not an abstract issue, as this article outlines. These forever chemicals are adversely impacting real people right now, and they can be causing families to confront health issues like autoimmune disease, cancer, even children missing their set of adult teeth.
So not only do we need more research, we need strong action now, and that is why the legislation we are considering here today is so important.
Pingree).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SCANLON. Dean).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a January 8 letter from over 20 environmental groups, including Earthjustice, the Center for Environmental Health, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, all in favor of this legislation. January 8, 2020. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, Washington, DC. Hon. Steny Hoyer, Majority Leader, Washington, DC. Hon. Steve Scalise, Minority Whip, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Minority Leader McCarthy, Minority Whip Scalise and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned non-governmental organizations write today to urge you to vote YES on H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act.
Toxic PFAS chemicals have now been confirmed in the water of more than 1,400 communities, including nearly 300 military installations, and studies have linked PFAS to serious health problems, including cancer. H.R. 535 will build on the progress made in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020 by restricting industrial releases of PFAS into our air and water, setting a drinking water standard for PFOA and PFOS in tap water, and by kick-starting the process of cleaning up legacy PFAS contamination by designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law.
The science is clear: PFAS have been linked to serious health problems through decades of animal, worker, and human studies. Unfortunately, EPA has failed to take steps to restrict air and water releases, reduce PFAS in our tap water, or clean up the nation's most contaminated sites. H.R. 535 will set clear deadlines requiring EPA to do just that. Designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, as proposed by H.R. 535, will not ban PFAS--but will instead ensure that the most contaminated sites are finally cleaned up.
We urge you to vote YES on H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act. Sincerely, Christine Santillana, Earthjustice; Patrick MacRoy, Environmental Health Strategy Center; Shaina Kasper, Toxics Action Center Campaigns; Andrea Braswell, Center for Environmental Health; Michael Green, Center for Environmental Health; Laurene Allen, Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water; Paul and Diane Cotter, Your Turnout Gear and PFOA; Pamela Kay Miller, Alaska Community Action on Toxics; Tara Thorntom, Endangered Species Coalition; Dalal Aboulhosn, Sierra Club; Meghan Boian, Southern Environmental Law Center; Stel Bailey, Fight For Zero; Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action; Colin O'Neil, Environmental Working Group; John Rumpler, Environment America; Pamitha Weerasinghe, Union of Concerned Scientists; Loreen Hackett, #PfoaProjectNY; Sabina Perez, Office of Senator Perez, 35th Guam Legislature; Joanne Stanton, Buxmont Coalition for Safer Water; Glenn Watkins, National Wildlife Federation; Hope Grosse, Buxmont Coalition for Safer Water.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SCANLON. DeLauro).
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate again that this is, in fact, a bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, ensuring the health and safety of our constituents is one of the chief responsibilities we have as Members of Congress. The PFAS Action Act will keep Americans safe by stopping the flow of harmful chemicals into our environment, our drinking water, and the products we use every day.
The fight to protect our constituents is ongoing. Science has come a long way in the last 60 years, and we must use those developments to better inform and address the concerns of all Americans.
One of the lessons we must take from having this debate today is that we are all better off by having a strong, responsive, and people- focused EPA. We need an EPA that doesn't treat the American populace like crash-test dummies for the chemical industry to test their products on. Asking for forgiveness instead of permission is not an acceptable tactic when it comes to the health and well-being of our constituents.
We need an EPA that enforces environmental protections, not one that lets industry off the hook whenever it isn't in compliance. We need an EPA that respects hard, indisputable science, not one that willfully buries its head in the sand to avoid the inevitable.
That is what our constituents want from us, to know that they are not being put at risk by the decisions we make.
I am proud that this bill will pass the House today. The PFAS Action Act is a commitment to the American people that this majority will take a long-overdue step to protect their health and safety.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 779
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in order as though printed as the last amendment in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if offered by Representative Shimkus of Illinois or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as follows:
Strike section 2 and all that follows and insert the following: SEC. 2. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS FOR PFAS.
Section 1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(16) Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public comment, promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which shall, at a minimum, include standards for--
``(i) perfluorooctanoic acid (commonly referred to as `PFOA'); and ``(ii) perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (commonly referred to as `PFOS').
``(B) Alternative procedures.--``(i) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the validation by the Administrator of an equally effective quality control and testing procedure to ensure compliance with the national primary drinking water regulation promulgated under subparagraph (A) to measure the levels described in clause (ii) or other methods to detect and monitor perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking water, the Administrator shall add the procedure or method as an alternative to the quality control and testing procedure described in such national primary drinking water regulation by publishing the procedure or method in the Federal Register in accordance with section 1401(1)(D).
``(ii) Levels described.--The levels referred to in clause (i) are--
``(I) the level of a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance;
''(II) the total levels of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances; and
``(III) the total levels of organic fluorine.
''(C) Inclusions.--The Administrator may include a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances on--
``(i) the list of contaminants for consideration of regulation under paragraph (1)(B)(i), in accordance with such paragraph; and
``(ii) the list of unregulated contaminants to be monitored under section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i), in accordance with such section.
``(D) Monitoring.--When establishing monitoring requirements for public water systems as part of a national primary drinking water regulation under subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (F)(ii), the Administrator shall tailor the monitoring requirements for public water systems that do not detect or are reliably and consistently below the maximum contaminant level (as defined in section 1418(b)(2)(B)) for the perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances subject to the national primary drinking water regulation.
``(E) Health risk reduction and cost analysis.--In meeting the requirements of paragraph (3)(C), the Administrator may rely on information available to the Administrator with respect to 1 or more specific perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances to extrapolate reasoned conclusions regarding the health risks and effects of a class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances of which the specific perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances are a part.
``(F) Regulation of additional substances.--
``(i) Determination.--The Administrator shall make a determination under paragraph (1)(A), using the criteria described in clauses (i) through (iii) of that paragraph, whether to include a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances in the national primary drinking water regulation under subparagraph (A) not later than 18 months after the later of--
``(I) the date on which the perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances is listed on the list of contaminants for consideration of regulation under paragraph (1)(B)(i); and
``(II) the date on which--
``(aa) the Administrator has received the results of monitoring under section 1445(a)(2)(B) for the perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances; or
``(bb) the Administrator has received reliable water data or water monitoring surveys for the perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances from a Federal or State agency that the Administrator determines to be of a quality sufficient to make a determination under paragraph (1)(A).
``(ii) Primary drinking water regulations.--
``(I) In general.--For each perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances that the Administrator determines to regulate under clause (i), the Administrator--
``(aa) not later than 18 months after the date on which the Administrator makes the determination, shall propose a national primary drinking water regulation for the perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances; and
``(bb) may publish the proposed national primary drinking water regulation described in item (aa) concurrently with the publication of the determination to regulate the perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance or class of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances.
``(II) Deadline.--
``(aa) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which the Administrator publishes a proposed national primary drinking water regulation under clause (i)(I) and subject to item (bb), the Administrator shall take final action on the proposed national primary drinking water regulation.
``(bb) Extension.--The Administrator, on publication of notice in the Federal Register, may extend the deadline under item (aa) by not more than 24 months.
``(G) Health advisory.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Administrator shall publish a health advisory under paragraph (1)(F) for a 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.''.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source