National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the en bloc amendment offered by Representative Slotkin which makes seven separate and substantive policy changes to the Armed Services Committee's bill.

This amendment, like the underlying NDAA, contains provisions that are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, but we have never, never had a legislative hearing on these proposals.

Unfortunately, I fear the lack of due diligence on these provisions will create implementation confusion and burdensome outcomes, not just for the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, but for everyday Americans.

This amendment focuses on PFAS chemicals, an entire class of over 9,000 chemicals. Broadly speaking, everyone wants to address PFAS contamination, but we have to do it in a smart and thoughtful way; otherwise, there are considerable consequences.

Let me point out a few of consequences.

First, the en bloc amendment's provision related to an incineration moratorium does not use the defined term linking these provisions to the Defense Department, but addresses ``materials sent to another entity or entities.''

This makes it unclear who is subject to an incineration moratorium under section 318, potentially extending the temporary ban from just the military to any person.

If the executive or judicial branches of our government adopt my reading of the en bloc amendment, it would have profound policy implications on waste, storage, and disposal practices in our country. Of greatest concern, a policy like this has the real potential to overwhelm existing landfill capacity and leave few viable disposal options for Americans. This is not the outcome we want.

Setting this interpretation aside, though, this language creates a structure where the Federal Government is now deciding on the disposal methods of municipal solid waste. This is entirely unnecessary and impractical.

Further, this framework disregards the Federal law governing these matters, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Second, the Toxic Release Inventory reporting threshold provisions in this amendment also contain problems. These provisions would statutorily deem these chemicals, without scientific review by EPA, chemicals of special concern and prohibit the use of existing exemptions.

Complicating matters, EPA has only validated 29 measurement techniques for PFAS in drinking water. There are 172 PFAS currently subject to reporting, making measurements on 143 PFAS unreliable and subject to enforcement by EPA.

Further expanding the reach of the Federal Government into areas without proper justification.

Finally, the amount of people or entities that would need to report is unknown and could be huge, encompassing many parties who neither made nor added PFAS to their processes.

It is a reasonable expectation for these stakeholders that, to prove they don't have it, they will need to use invalid tests or potentially install filtering technology, even though there is no Federal standard.

In another area, the en bloc amendment recycles provisions from the PFAS Action Act which the House voted on recently and E&C Republicans largely opposed. These requirements would create duplicate reporting and submission burdens on manufacturers and administrative resource constraints at EPA and potentially each State.

EPA is already compelling data production on existing PFAS from the same people for the same ultimate purpose under Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act. It makes me wonder whether the purpose of these and other provisions is to get necessary information to EPA to help its essential data gaps and address PFAS contamination, or if this is about something else entirely different.

Much of our debate about the PFAS Action Act surrounded the fact that it would lead to a de facto ban on these chemicals, and it will.

No one opposes the effort to hold DOD accountable for its messes or to keep the men and women of the Armed Forces and surrounding communities safe from environmental harm. But before we act on the far- reaching language of the amendment, not to mention some of the underlying bill, we need to know about the facts on the ground, especially for this motley crew of amendments.

PFAS are a large class of chemicals, as I said, over 9,000, with essential uses, including many necessary for our national defense.

There is a strong lesson here for the majority: Follow regular order; hold hearings and markups, and your work could result in practical, workable, and effective policy and a public law.

Unfortunately, my Democrat friends have done the opposite here, seriously completing the chance this language has at becoming law. I oppose the amendment. I urge others to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source