Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. National Defense
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, PFAS chemicals affect our drinking water, our crops, the air we breathe, and the products we bring into our homes.
As Members know, PFAS are a large class of chemicals that are highly persistent and mobile in the environment. They are commonly referred to as forever chemicals.
PFAS have contaminated more than 2,300 sites across 49 States, polluting the drinking water of an estimated 200 million Americans, including thousands of households in my home State of North Carolina and at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.
Forever chemicals have been associated with a wide range of serious health effects, including a probable link with cancer, thyroid disease, lower fertility, and more. Over 500 PFAS are included on the Federal inventory of chemicals that can be used in commerce, but we know very little about what these chemicals are, where they are manufactured and used, and how the American people and our troops are being exposed.
Thankfully, after years of indecision, Congress took bipartisan action in the fiscal year 2020 NDAA, directing EPA to complete a PFAS reporting rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The rule requires EPA to use its existing authority to obtain information about all PFAS manufactured since 2011, including their identity, where they are manufactured, total amounts produced, general categories of how they are used, and existing information on environmental and health effects.
We lack this information for virtually all of the PFAS that have been manufactured and released into the environment in our country, a critical blind spot that hinders our ability to understand the full scope of the challenge we face and how to protect the public and our troops.
Unfortunately, EPA's proposed rule contains a significant flaw. It defines ``PFAS'' far too narrowly, excluding hundreds of these forever chemicals, including some that have already been found in drinking water or that have been incinerated as waste around the country.
During the comment period, numerous stakeholders, including drinking water utilities, State environmental protection agencies, PFAS scientists, 17 State attorneys general, all urged EPA to use a broader definition in the final rule, with many advocating for the consensus definition recently adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
A reporting rule that fails to capture the full universe of PFAS will deprive EPA, Congress, the States, and the public of information necessary to address the effects of PFAS effectively and efficiently.
My bipartisan amendment with Representative Mace directs EPA to use a simple definition of PFAS--one fully fluorinated carbon atom--that is consistent with the international definition.
A final PFAS reporting rule using the definition in our amendment will ensure that we have the full picture of the nature and extent of the PFAS effects, enabling Congress and the administration to formulate an effective plan of action to address these problems.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear that this is a reporting rule, it is not a regulation. It is more like a law requiring labeling on food and packaging, and it gives the public information about chemicals that affect their health. Our water resource agencies are asking for this. We are trying to clean up some of the effects.
In North Carolina, we are seeing this in the Cape Fear River. Again, it is affecting the health of our people and our troops.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the public, in the comment period, has said that we need more information and a more robust definition.
It also belongs in the NDAA because it originated in the 2020 NDAA, and it has affected troops in North Carolina, particularly adjacent to the Cape Fear River.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source