Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stop this bill. Open your minds to science and technology. Look and see the mysteries of the mother's womb. Open your ears to the cries of the unborn. May hearts break, and may we celebrate life--life in the United States of America--life for the living and the unborn. Vote ``no.'' Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington

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.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), a leader on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I continue to 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.

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.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hyde amendment and urge us to be warriors for human dignity and human value. We must cherish every person's unalienable human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With technology today, we can look into the womb and watch the development of a baby day by day. Doctors are able to administer lifesaving care to babies before they are born. It is a miracle to witness, and it is proof that life begins at conception. Our laws should reflect this science and the truth. For decades, my colleagues across the aisle, including President Joe Biden, agreed. I urge them to join us to protect life. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 18, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on the subcommittee. I rise today, unfortunately, in strong opposition to H.R. 2668, the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act, which represents a missed opportunity for both our committee and this Chamber. Energy and Commerce has historically been the committee of bipartisanship and compromise. Unfortunately, this bill fails to meet that standard in the committee's rich history. The legislation before us today is another go-it-alone approach that we have come to expect from House Democrat leadership. In all my time on the committee, I am not sure I have seen so many process fouls or so much disregard for the minority as I have with H.R. 2668. It fails to include an amendment put forward by Representative Gus Bilirakis, our fearless leader and ranking member on the subcommittee that received bipartisan support in our committee markup. H.R. 2668 has been shadowed by a series of procedural fouls beginning with the intentional exclusion of Republican FTC commissioners from Energy and Commerce's hearing on this legislation as opposed to the Senate Commerce Committee hearing where they were invited to discuss 13(b) authority at length 1 week before. Perhaps the Republican commissioners were excluded from our hearing because the majority did not want to hear the truth about their bill. If the majority had led a better, more fair process, this legislation would have been significantly improved or at least built on the trust that we could come together on solutions crafted around sound legal arguments and analysis by all the proper experts. To be clear, I share the goal of H.R. 2668, to protect people from scammers. But this bill is missing much-needed guardrails that the committee Republicans offered as amendments. My biggest concern with this legislation, it fails to prioritize due process and ensuring proper analysis. This bill was pushed through a subcommittee markup without a good-faith effort to address the real concerns that we were raising. We were given less than a week's notice late on Friday before the markup, and shortly before that DOJ sent us incomplete answers to a letter addressing the legitimate concerns raised by our members. This was followed by what seemed like a coordinated response to our questions for the record from FTC Acting Chair Slaughter shortly thereafter. Mr. Speaker, committee members on both sides of the aisle received just 38 hours of notice regarding the inclusion of this legislation during a full committee markup resulting in criticism from both sides of the aisle. I doubt many Members of this House believe Congress should operate in this manner. I do think we can all agree that both Republicans and Democrats want to protect people from malicious actors and that the FTC must have the necessary tools to do so. H.R. 2668 grants FTC brand-new authorities under section 13(b) of the FTC Act, to seek financial penalties for what it alleges is fraud and anticompetitive behavior. It does so without the inclusion of guardrails to protect due process. This is a huge, missed opportunity to enact a national privacy standard. Last Congress, Senator Wicker rightfully identified privacy and 13(b) reform as policies that could be easily legislated together and should. Even this bill's prime sponsor, Mr. Cardenas, acknowledged his effort to include a national privacy standard with a legislative fix for 13(b). We must do our job. We cannot have California dictating policy for the other 49 States. If my colleagues are so concerned about urgently granting the FTC with new authorities to protect people, why aren't we urgently passing a national standard, which we all agree will protect their data privacy? This legislation fails to address much-needed FTC reforms, to increase transparency, establish a national privacy framework, and ensure due process. There should be no lack of will to take on fraudsters, scammers, and abusers of our personal information. We need to sit down, work it out, and move comprehensive FTC reform legislation forward together. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We can do better.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, my heart is heavy as I rise today to honor the life of my dear friend, Hoyt Humphreys ``Larry'' Larison, who passed away on December 11, 2020. My prayers are with Larry's family as we mourn his passing. Born and raised in Montana, Larry was a lifelong member of the Pacific Northwest community who later planted his roots in Eastern Washington. This is how I got to know Larry as a leader and strong champion for education and entrepreneurship. Larry committed his life to creating opportunities for the next generation of American leaders, serving on the Whitworth University School of Business Advisory Board in Spokane and sponsoring multiple annual scholarships for students across the region. Larry was generous with not only his financial contributions but also his time and wisdom, playing an active role in various organizations throughout his life. He served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee Small Business Advisory Council under President Ronald Reagan, Director of Finance and Governance Committees for Spokane Mobius Science Center, and Director of the Finance and Marketing Committee for the Spokane County Boys and Girls Clubs, to name a few. Larry always felt indebted to have these opportunities in life and never took anything for granted. He had an amazing impact on the lives of so many in Eastern Washington, and I was grateful for his friendship and insights. I will never forget his passion for being outdoors and enjoying God's beautiful creations in the Western United States. Above all, I will always remember how proud Larry was to be an American. He embodied the American spirit by seizing every opportunity and encouraging others to chase their dreams. He always gave time and encouragement to everyone he knew, and we are better for his impact on our lives. Madam Speaker, Larry Larison lived an amazing life that deserves to be celebrated. In honor of Larry's legacy, passion, and contributions that inspired so many, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Larry Larison. May God grant him eternal peace in His kingdom.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, my heart is heavy as I rise today to honor the life of my dear friend, Sharon Silzel, who passed away on December 17, 2020 after a long battle with Parkinson's Disease. My prayers are with Sharon's family as we mourn her passing. Sharon spent her first 30 years in Spokane, Washington as a dental and orthopedic assistant before answering her true calling--politics. In 1994, she hopped on the campaign trail, helping to elect George Nethercutt to the very seat in Congress that I have the honor of representing today. She was a force as a volunteer on my first campaign for Congress and remained a supporter and friend through the years. In every sense of the word, Sharon was a trailblazer. After marrying her soulmate Jack in 2001, Sharon moved to Washington, D.C. where she served in the White House screening student correspondence for President George W. Bush. Upon returning to Eastern Washington, Sharon kept her passion for politics alive as a member of Ponderosa Republican Women where she continued to champion the values that make our nation the greatest in the world. Her love for politics never stopped Sharon from fully immersing herself in the Spokane County community. She was well-known by her neighbors as a faithful member of St. Anthony Catholic Church and proud supporter of Trinity Elementary School. I knew Sharon to be a faithful follower of the Lord, and her light touched the lives of so many from Spokane to Washington, D.C. and everyone she met in between. Each and every one of us who had the privilege of knowing Sharon in this life are better because of it, and I thank God for giving me the blessing of calling her my friend. Madam Speaker, Sharon Silzel lived an amazing life that deserves to be celebrated. In honor of her legacy, passion, and contributions that inspired so many, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Sharon Silzel. May God grant her eternal peace in His kingdom.