Pfas Action Act of 2021

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source