John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. And if it is toxic, which means it would be defined as harmful to a baby, why are we using it in a baby to fix the heart?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I thank the cardiothoracic surgeon for yielding.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute to respond. Mr. Chair, if all this whole class of 7,866 chemicals is so dangerous, why does FDA allow us to implant them in the hearts of infant children? If this is so dangerous--there may be a couple that are bad, we are not disputing that, but the entire class? If it is so bad, why does the FDA say it is okay for food packaging? If it is so bad, why didn't my friends in the Obama administration, in that EPA ban it? Because they want to do the scientific analysis. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, on my time, I have a question for the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz). I have great respect for the doctor and his medical knowledge--just two questions. One, if the medical device has been made, right, and then there is a defect, so they throw it away, and if we have labeled that as a toxic chemical, then that chemical in the municipal waste now becomes a Superfund site; right? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SHIMKUS. The answer is, under current law, H.R. 535, not amended, the answer is yes. So why would they make it?

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, I understand the physiology. I got that. I am just telling you the problem with this bill. But the question is, the device, labeled as toxic, thrown in a municipal waste field would then become a Superfund site under current law. And then I guess the other question I would ask the doctor is: There are 7,866 permutations of per- and polyfluorinated compounds. I would ask the doctor, which one is he referring to? Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, just a couple of points. Obviously, we have numerous problems with all of the sections of this bill. The one that is also troubling is the 5-year ban, because under TSCA, which we worked on, passed in a bipartisan manner, no new chemicals can come to the market unless it is safe. So what this bill does, is already label a per- or polyfluorinated compound that could be very lifesaving and helpful, it puts a scarlet letter on them beforehand and it doesn't allow it. Chemistry is the future, cleaner, greener, and it is the future for an EV world, super computing, you name it. But we are banning per- and polyfluorinated compounds. Now remember, there are 7,866 different permutations of this. So where we accept the premise that there may be some that are terrible, we are not accepting the premise that they are all bad, and that is what this bill does. I also want to highlight that Superfund designation is not salvation. Eielson Air Force base in Fairbanks, Alaska, went on the Superfund site November 21, 1989. It is still there after 30 years. So just think about the community now that has been stigmatized under a Superfund designation, and they are not going to be able to redevelop, retrain, rebuild, and grow the economy. I have a whole list of these things from 30 years, 32 years, 30, 35 years ago. Most of us have dealt with Superfund sites in our district. I have. They are no fun and they are not helpful, and it takes forever. Talking about forever chemicals, we are talking about forever Superfund sites, and that is what you are signing up for in this debate. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we went through the TSCA debate, one thing I learned was exposure over time of the hazard equals the risk. Sometimes, we conflate a bad chemical as risk unless you can protect it from exposure. That is why I have been focusing on the 7,866 chemicals. That is why I am talking about the PFAS that might be in a hockey puck but not in the bloodstream. But this bill says that everything is going to be labeled as a hazardous waste and followed up on Superfund. The contrary argument is: Great, put it in the Superfund. When will that get cleaned up? If it is in Ellison Air Force Base, Alaska, 30 years, and it is still not cleaned up. Williams Air Force Base, Chandler, Arizona, 30 years, and it is still not cleaned up. Castle Air Force Base, Merced, California, 32 years, and it is still not cleaned up. Dover Air Force Base, 30 years, and it is still not cleaned up. Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island, 33 years, and it is still not cleaned up. Walsh Landfill, Honey Brook Township, Pennsylvania, Superfund site, 35 years, and it is still not cleaned up. Colbert, what we have is 35 years of litigation. I like that red map that they are touting out here on this bill. That red map indicates trial lawyer action in all those States because most of the Superfund money goes to litigation. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I also want to highlight what we have done. I think some people have alluded to it, that nothing was done, but a lot was done in the National Defense Authorization Act. A little bit more was done in the end-of-year spending bill. This Safe Drinking Water Act provision could have been in, and we all know it. That could have been in law today. But it wasn't, as leverage for this bill that we are talking about today. In the NDAA, we require EPA to mandate that drinking water systems monitor for unregulated PFAS. That is law. In the NDAA, it is now law that we provide grants to communities to address emerging contaminants in drinking water, including PFAS. Currently, in law, we require new reporting for PFAS under the Toxics Release Inventory program. Currently, under law, it is required that manufacturers and processors of PFAS submit health and safety information. It is now law. Current law restricts new uses of long-chain PFAS. Now, what do I mean by long chain? That is when there are 7,866 different per- and polyfluorinated compounds. You have long-chain ones, and you have short-chain ones. We are banning the long chain, and again, we need scientific research, but this bans them all, whether or not they are safe. EPA law now is guidance for appropriate destruction. Now currently under law, it requires the Federal Government to work expeditiously with States to enter in a binding cooperative agreement concerning cleanup. Mr. Chairman, that is in respect to your State of Michigan. Michigan established its standard. The Department of Defense was hiding behind the fact that it couldn't negotiate. You guys were successful. Former Chairman Upton was part of that fight. I applaud the State of Michigan for having that done, and now that is current law. In the appropriations bill, which provided $2 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking State Revolving Fund, $20 million will go to State- level PFOS cleanup. So as we hear this debate and as we go to the amendments, we are going to hear doom and gloom and that we are negligent, that EPA is not doing anything, and that we are terrible people. In fact, at the end of last year, great strides were made, in a bipartisan manner. I applaud the NDAA. I applaud the end-of-year spending bill. And this, too, shall end. I do want to highlight the fact that to ban 7,866 forms of per- and polyfluorinated compounds without doing science, that has never been done in the history of this Chamber and this body. It is more political science versus science. We get it. We will move through this process. We will have our votes, and then this will be a fight for the next Congress because the Senate has said it is not going to support this bill. It is not going to bring it up. The President has already issued a veto threat. It is a good exercise. I get to practice speaking on the floor with my friends in debate, which I look forward to as we bring up the amendments. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I, too, rise in support of this amendment. It is my understanding this amends section 18 to ensure the FAA, State and local building code inspectors, and fire marshals are at the guidance-making table. I understand the officers believe this will result in a broader collaborative dialogue that includes the risks posed by the use of foam suppression systems in aviation hangars. That would be helpful. I understand that, in aircraft hangars, foam systems are not being used by first responders pursuant to Federal regulations. I have one question for the sponsor of the amendment about his intent with regard to one item. Is this amendment intended to open a dialogue about human health impacts or standards, or personal protective equipment requirements, responses, protocols, or anything like that?

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague for the explanation. I also would highlight that under this bill, airports are exempt from the Superfund liability. It does pose a question of who cleans up the composed contamination on airports if we are going to protect airports from the liability. I guess airports went out; other communities do not.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, my colleague, Mr. Hudson, has led the committee's efforts to address GenX on behalf of his constituents in North Carolina. He has pressed EPA to complete its human health toxicity assessment on GenX using science. This amendment takes the next step to focus EPA on ways to keep people's drinking water safe under GenX. This is a prudent step to harness the technical expertise of the EPA to identify ways to reduce contamination of the substance, which will be useful in connection with EPA's other work and will aim to stop future problems like those in Cape Fear River. I applaud my colleague and friend for his work.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. I have been on the Energy and Commerce Committee a long time. I am the ranking member on the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee which has jurisdiction on this. We are in this debate today because emotion is trumping science. We are not willing to give the scientific community enough time to say that this class of chemicals is bad. We want to do something we have never done. We want to legislatively ban a chemical by legislative fiat, not by doing the due diligence of the scientific process. I got lectured last night. We get lectured all the time about how Republicans don't believe in science on the climate change debate. Well, then the contrary is true. Democrats don't believe in science to allow us to have an adequate debate on these chemicals. When we come to the floor, we talk about PFAS like it is one chemical. PFAS stands for perfluorinated or polyfluorinated compounds. There are over 7,800 of these types of compounds. Some are long-chain compounds; some are small-chain compounds, and they are in every aspect of our life. In fact, the FDA has approved PFAS for food container linings. Let me get that right. Things that are touching our food, the FDA has evaluated it and said, this packaging material is safe. But no, that is not good enough for my colleagues, because emotion, which we operate on here, especially on the floor of the House--I taught history and the Constitution, and we are supposed to be the emotive body. So this is what we do, as House Members we come to the floor, we cry out we are being harmed; government, save us, without doing the due diligence of science. And some of this was mentioned by my colleague, Mrs. Lesko, on her debate. But in the F-16--here are all the components that are made that have some form of poly- or perfluorinated compounds in the F-16. She used one of our favorites; why is this compound good in medical devices? It is great because--why is it good in military field jackets for our men and women in uniform? Because it repels water. That is what makes it great. That keeps our soldiers dry. I was an infantryman. I would rather be dry in a monsoon than wet, and that is what Gore-Tex or the Gore technology that uses the PFAS type of chemical does. We think there are two that we need to be concerned about--you have heard about it in the debate; we will hear about it more--PFOA and PFOS. But that doesn't mean the other 7,798 chemical formulations are bad. But what this bill that they are going to be bringing to the floor is saying, ban them all, even though the FDA said for food packaging it is safe. Even though it is a lifesaving medical device that is implanted in the heart of a child who has a hole in their heart, ban that. Don't worry about it. We will figure out something else to do. The rule is bad because there were opportunities for the bill to be fixed and brought to the floor. One dealt with medical devices. A cardiothoracic surgeon, Larry Bucshon, from Indiana, he offered an amendment to say, if you are going to have this implantable device, and then the device is not used and it is put in the landfill, please don't call that a toxic chemical, because these things save lives. That wasn't allowed in order. We are moving into an electric vehicle world. Guess what all these components of an EV vehicle are going to be? Components with PFAS- connected chemicals. Lithium batteries, what do you think they have in them? PFAS- connected. So we have this next chart. Automotive parts containing fluoropolymers. Here they are. Starter motor, wiper motor, humidity sensor, engine control unit. I understand my colleague from Michigan and the firefighter foam debate. But what do you think this does to the automobile industry, where you have all these components that are made up of some form? So what we have been trying to do in working with our colleagues is say, let's find the ones we can agree upon and move upon.

Mr. SHIMKUS. So let's find the ones that we can agree upon and move into law. We worked diligently, and it was mentioned before--so the debate is also going to come and say, Republicans hate people, we hate health. Nothing is going to be done. We have to save the Republic, right? Not true. Even though I am an authorizer, as I said in the Rules Committee, we don't like when other committees usurp our authorization, right, chairman? And we don't like when appropriators do it. But they did it right at the end of the year. In the National Defense Authorization Act, it requires EPA to mandate that drinking water systems monitor unregulated PFAS. Click that off. We did it. Provide grants to communities to address this issue. Checkmark. We did that. Requires new reporting of PFAS under the Toxic Release Inventory Program. We did that. Requires manufacturers and processors of PFAS to submit health and safety information to the EPA. Another checkmark. Guidance for appropriate destruction of PFAS, restriction of long chain. Let me say something that is really problematic about this bill. It bans all new uses of PFAS chemicals. We know science creates healthier environments. So if we are able to create a PFAS system that may not be a major concern, we can't bring it to market because this bill bans it. Remember, we are talking about 7,800 formulations. It was also mentioned by my colleague that, in the omnibus bill, 20 million more dollars to go to communities to address this problem. So as we go through this debate, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' They should have brought more amendments allowed to make the bill better. Having said that, we can go home--and we did--saying we have addressed this problem; and this bill, that takes a terrible provision of doing something we haven't done in 40 years, ever, legislatively ban a chemical.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this is the only thing that can get signed into law. We have the Statement of Administration Policy put out last night that said, in this form, he would veto the bill. But more challenging is the fact that numerous colleagues on the other side of the building have said they are done. We worked with the four corners to address a compromise. What this amendment does is help move the ball forward that, unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues could not say yes to when we had three of the four corners supported; House Republicans, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans. So part of this exercise is to say, oh, you know, we really screwed up. Now we have got to show the public we are doing something when we rejected a four-corner compromise that could have been signed into law. So what we do is--the Lesko amendment is the language, as I mentioned, that House Democrat and committee leaders rejected as part of the NDAA; so we are trying to then move and get the final portion of the most-agreed upon project. It requires drinking water standards for the best-known PFAS in 2 years, using a science and risk-based approach, and creates an expedited pathway for PFAS in the future. Listen, I would rather use total science. I don't want to use emotion. But the problem is, science takes time and emotion doesn't. They have to show activity, but if FDA has said some of these compounds are safe for food packaging, how do we say they are all bad? Let me say that again. FDA has said some of these compounds are safe for packaging of food. How do we ban 7,800 different permutations of the PFAS? I would not have drafted this proposal this way. There are some ideas in it that give me pause. But overall, I know how to say yes to solve problems when they need solving. Making compromise means supporting things you may not be comfortable with in order to get something everyone can live with. Don't make the perfect be the enemy of the good. Take the olive branch. Solve PFAS. Reject partisanship over problem-solving. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the Lesko amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, long before today's votes were scheduled, my wife Karen and I made arrangements to visit our son Joshua in Tanzania where he's serving in the Peace Corp. At the White House last week I informed President Trump that I would not be present for these votes, and he was supportive of me visiting my son. I told him I did not support his impeachment, and I have requested that this statement of my reasons for opposing both articles of impeachment be entered into the Congressional Record. I've been to Ukraine twice this year. I was an observer of the second round of the Presidential election on April 21, 2019. I returned with a bipartisan Congressional delegation from September 28 thru October 5, 2019 right in the middle of this supposed controversy. We met with many people. We met with our embassy leadership. We also met with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister and Minister of Defense. We had a chance to visit our soldiers who are helping in the training mission of the Ukrainian military. During that time, we met with the military leadership of both countries. Finally, we met with members of the Ukrainian parliament. During all these meeting no one mentioned a quid pro quo. What I also know is this: The Trump Administration provided the long- overdue aid to Ukraine, including lethal Javelin anti-tank missiles, that had been authorized by Congress but withheld by the previous administration in their misguided efforts to appease Russia. Other assistance to Ukraine was temporarily delayed this year following the election of a new president--a political outsider we knew little about. The new president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, also addressed this issue several times. He has rejected the accusation that any quid pro quo or any pressure was applied to him or the Ukrainian government. The aid was also released prior to the Ukrainian government being pulled into this political controversy. These observations convince me that the first article of impeachment, ``abuse of power,'' is not credible. My experience in Congress, including during the impeachment of President Clinton, likewise convinces me the second article of impeachment, ``obstruction of congress,'' is not a credible charge. Constant tension exists between our legislative and executive branches of government. Every president I've served with has said at one time or another he is empowered to do this or to withhold that. When Congress disagrees, we have at times taken those questions of executive authority or privilege to our third branch of government: the courts. But the Democrats haven't even given President Trump an opportunity to defend his executive privilege through the courts, and they're demanding that he just give up his constitutional powers under Article II. I'm disappointed to miss these votes but not embarrassed. I'm embarrassed that they are even happening.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Thornberry and Chairman Smith. I say a special thank you to Mr. Thornberry and his staff. They have been great partners in this journey of addressing PFAS in the NDAA. First and foremost, I am pleased that we have reached a deal on the funding of our Armed Services. Ensuring appropriate and sufficient resources for our men and women who serve on the frontline every day should be our top priority. Having said that, I am disappointed about two provisions that did not get in. One would have required EPA to set a national drinking water standard on PFOA and PFOS within 2 years. And the second one would have instituted a mandate on DOD to clean up immediately any DOD sites contaminated with PFOA or PFOS. Republican Members supported these two provisions as part of a larger package, and I think not including them amounts to a very great lost opportunity. Nonetheless, I support the NDAA and PFAS provisions that we were able to get into the bill. Those provisions include: Mr. Upton's Federal facilities and cooperative agreements; Funding for reducing PFAS and rural economically disadvantaged drinking water systems; Health data collection from PFAS manufacturers under TSCA; Guidance on proper disposal of PFAS chemicals; More reporting on PFAS chemicals on the Toxic Release Inventory; and Funding for further research into PFAS chemicals. As my Republican colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce discussed at a recent markup, getting PFAS provisions into the NDAA means that they will be signed into law and will start making a difference in our communities back home right now. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, do you want 10 new drugs, 30 new drugs on the market, 100 new drugs on the market or zero? H.R. 3 removes research and development investments, which will hinder innovation. Innovation doesn't always mean higher cost. Take hepatitis C, which lowers, reduces healthcare costs in the long run. Technology and innovation have always had the potential to reduce the time and costs of identifying and developing new therapies, which lower the cost of drugs. Incorporation of innovative genomic analysis means drug developers can reduce the amount of guesswork in identifying candidate molecules for further research. This same technology is being used by drug manufacturers today to help streamline and expedite the process of conducting trials. And investments in precision medicine will mean that you don't prescribe drugs that will not work or, in some cases, make people sicker. That is why I support H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act, which is composed entirely of bipartisan provisions and could become law right now.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Illinois State Trooper Todd Hanneken for his heroic service on May 8, 2018. On that day Trooper Todd Hanneken was on the scene of a previous accident on the northbound lane of Interstate 57 when suddenly a semi-truck slammed into the last vehicle in line. The vehicle, driven by Andrew Bergan, burst into flames as it was thrust forward into the car in front of it. When Mr. Bergan's truck came to rest, the cab was engulfed in flames and its doors were blocked. As others attempted to keep the fire at bay, Trooper Hanneken kicked out the windshield and, with the help of two others, pulled Mr. Bergan to safety. The quick response saved Mr. Bergan's life. In recognition of Trooper Hanneken's actions that day, he was awarded the Medal of Honor on October 30, 2019. This honor is awarded to Illinois State Police personnel who ``perform a heroic act that by its nature results in saving a life, preventing a serious crime or apprehending a person who committed a serious crime.'' Since the events of May 8, 2018, Trooper Hanneken has called Mr. Bergan several times, visited the hospital and met with his parents, while Mr. Bergan was present for the awarding of the Medal of Honor. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure I stand to recognize Trooper Todd Hanneken for his heroism. His dedication to duty and to his fellow man is an inspiration to us all. I wish him the very best, along with all of the survivors of the crash that day.