John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, it is just amazing that last night, the National Journal published an article called: ``PFAS Bill Could Spark Tort `Bonanza'.'' I will read from that: ``An association of U.S. trial lawyers with deep lobbying pockets and the ear of influential Democrats is helping to push a sweeping chemical-regulation package that could pave the way for a prolific legal bumper crop.'' This is not just a forever chemical debate. This is a forever litigation debate, litigation after litigation as Superfund sites get established. They are there for decades, as I quoted last night numerous times. We have Superfund sites that have been identified that are still unremediated 30 to 40 years after they were established. This bill attempts to use the Superfund as the silver bullet to address this concern. I mentioned last night, but it is a new day: This is the first time in the history of the Superfund legislation that, in the Clean Water Act, we are legislatively identifying a chemical as hazardous not using the scientific process. For that and all the other reasons, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Safe Drinking Water Act already makes special priority for what is termed ``disadvantaged communities'' which is based on affordability criteria. I wish my colleagues who offered this amendment would have been here last night when we passed an amendment to support rich communities who have already funded their cleanup and are allowing them then to dip back into Federal funds to make the payment. So they may have, if they had a chance to be here for that amendment, voted against communities that have already been able to afford to clean up, but we are going to dip into this money at the expense of poor communities. So that is kind of what occurred last night. This covers a range of low-income communities that may have trouble paying for infrastructure needs and has been widely supported as an appropriate function of taxpayer support. This amendment creates a broad new category that disproportionately exposes, and which would appear to expand coverage beyond economic factors which may actually undermine the straightforward support for the poor and the disadvantaged already in statute. I respect the desire to ensure prioritization to communities that may be particularly hard hit with other economic and environmental issues, but the workability of the new definition has not been closely examined and may complicate the provisions of resources to those communities that need it. A better way to do this would be to require a rulemaking to sort out the best approach to prioritize funding to disadvantaged people. In a letter written by the water communities, one paragraph says--and I would hope my colleagues would listen to this--because in every community we have water companies that are supposed to provide safe drinking water to our citizens. So the water companies have written to us about this bill. And that is the American Water Works Association, the Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Association of Water Companies, the National Water Resources Association, the National Rural Water Association, and Water Environment Federation. These are the people who are going to provide clean drinking water to our constituents, and this is what they say about this bill: ``Unfortunately, H.R. 535 would leave municipal water and wastewater system customers subject to financial liability for PFAS cleanup under CERCLA,'' i.e., the Superfund, ``even in cases where the system followed all applicable laws and regulations related to PFAS disposal. This is in direct contrast to the objective of holding polluters responsible.'' I include their letter in the Record. January 8, 2020. Re Opposition to H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act. Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations representing the nation's drinking water and wastewater utilities are writing to express our opposition to H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019. Unfortunately, the legislation fails to protect water system customers from liability for PFAS cleanup costs. We believe that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) should be kept out of our nation's water supplies, and that PFAS polluters should be held responsible. The fundamental mission of water and wastewater utilities is to protect public health and the environment, and in doing so they must also be mindful of affordability and the financial burden borne by their customers and the communities they serve. Utilities are tremendously concerned about what PFAS is doing in their communities and, as they have done with all previous public health and environmental challenges, are committed partners in finding a solution to this problem. However, Congress must make a distinction between entities that introduced PFAS into the environment, and water and wastewater systems that are on the front lines of cleaning up the contamination. Utilities are not the producers of PFAS, but the receivers of PFAS and must dispose of water and wastewater treatment byproducts containing traces of the chemicals. A water system that follows all applicable laws in its disposal of water treatment byproducts containing PFAS should not be held liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for any further environmental cleanup costs related to these chemicals. Doing so would penalize customers twice: once when they make investments to remove PFAS from their waters, and again when they are forced to pay to cleanup PFAS contamination elsewhere. Unfortunately, H.R. 535 would leave municipal water and wastewater systems customers subject to financial liability for PFAS cleanup under CERCLA--even in cases where the system followed all applicable laws and regulations related to PFAS disposal. This is in direct contrast to the objective of holding polluters responsible. It is particularly disappointing that the manager's amendment proposed for H.R. 535 would offer a CERCLA liability shield to airports that are required to use firefighting foam containing PFAS, but fails to extend that same protection to water and wastewater systems who may be required to remove and dispose of PFAS. As receivers of PFAS, water utilities should be afforded the same liability protections that airports are being awarded in the legislation. Again, we share the goal of keeping the nation's waters free of PFAS and holding accountable those entities that are responsible for environmental contamination. But because H.R. 535 would leave water system customers unprotected against liability for environmental cleanup of PFAS, we have no choice but to oppose the legislation in its current form. Sincerely, American Water Works Association. Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. National Association of Clean Water Agencies. National Association of Water Companies. National Water Resources Association. National Rural Water Association. Water Environment Federation.

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

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague. I rose in opposition, just so she understands that I will be speaking in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the kind words. Mr. Chair, I wish she would have been here when the Rice amendment was on the floor, which has been passed and added to the bill, which would now allow the rich communities that have already paid for their modifications at great expense to be able to dip back into these funds at the expense of rural communities. That was an amendment we passed earlier. Mr. Chair, under this legislation, EPA is supposed to issue a national primary drinking water standard for PFAS, but PFOA and PFOS at a minimum. Once this is done, communities that are disadvantaged--and I am from rural Illinois, 33 counties--one, assistance for installing technology are eligible for the drinking water State-revolving loan programs. This amendment creates a double-dipping opportunity for communities when the main focus of the Safe Drinking Water Act State revolving fund is to help struggling systems meet the mandate it imposes to protect public health. More practically, because of budget allocations that the House appropriators are supposed to operate under, increased capitalization grants will suffer. Money, to the tune of $75 million, will be diverted to this particular PFAS grant program at the expense of the State revolving fund. Communities, especially rural communities, not only with PFAS but other compliance and health problems as well, could and will likely be a loser, so that is why I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Maine's problem with the airports. Fortunately, we have exempted airports from Superfund liability, and there is not going to be an ability for the gentleman's sites to get cleaned up. Other than that, based upon this amendment, we think the basic amendment is unnecessary. There is no objection to having EPA report annually on firefighter foam guidance. This amendment, though, does not have an end to annual reporting, and firefighting foam with fluorine is supposed to be phased out in 3 years under the military specs. Maybe moving forward, there could be a deadline. In addition, the amendment asks for recommendations to Congress to reduce exposure to PFAS and firefighting foam. This assumes that any remaining foam is hazardous, and meaningful safe is not examined, only exposure, a very nonscientific way to address the problem. Plus, I would prefer that there be some discussion, considering who is writing the report. The foam effect in this is discussed. Let's not add incomplete reporting. An underlying bill places enough unnecessary burdens on the public. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is no objection to having EPA obtaining technical input on technologies that are effective in removing PFAS from drinking water. I am concerned how formal a process the amendment seeks to impose. I was going to ask questions of Mr. Kim or Mr. Pallone. They are not here, and that is fine. The amendment only calls for public comment, but a full-blown notice and opportunity for public comment is an enormously expensive and time- consuming process for any agency, including the EPA. If the focus of the bill is to meet the timelines it imposes and not hold up grantmaking for a public comment process to play out, I think this amendment needs to be rethought a bit to get at the author's intent without tripping up EPA from executing the program. I will not oppose this amendment because I know there are larger problems with this bill that will prevent it from becoming law, but I want to highlight that this is an acceptable amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I do not plan to object to it.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good attempt to try to bring some sense to this bill, and I appreciate my colleague's attempt. What the amendment does is it really creates unachievable expectations. There are a lot of problems with the amendment, but one is that you are asking for a final rule within 100 days, especially if it is not proposed, which is going to set up a deadline suit. I have dealt with deadline suits. You got a deadline, and they can't meet it, then the agency gets sued. Why do we pay utilities to hold nuclear waste? Because they have enacted a deadline suit because we say we are going to take their waste, the Federal Government. We didn't take their waste, and now we have to pay the utilities to hold the waste that we were supposed to take. That is one issue that I have a concern. Mr. Chairman, 7,866 compounds, Clean Air Act aspects, and you are going to have, as I used numerous times during the National Defense Authorization Act debate, as I have used on the rule debate, these 7,866 different aspects of PFAS we are coming to the floor not using science, not using due diligence, but using political science to say ban it. Our argument has always been to let's do the science. The problem is, science takes a long time, and the political emotion of this debate just can't wait. We have addressed a lot of these concerns everybody raised throughout the night through the enacted National Defense Authorization Act and by the omnibus bill. But if you look at the F-16 and the component parts, and we could have an automobile in the new electric vehicle era, new battery technology, medical devices, they are all going to have some type of per- or polyfluorinated compounds. This amendment with the bill really is a de facto ban on the use of all per- and polyfluorinated compounds, or it is going to scare the producers of this, that they don't want to get caught in a litigation trap, so they are just not going to produce it. We have talked about firefighting foam quite a bit tonight. It is really a great debate because we do think there is some bipartisan nature that we can get to on that chemical. If you are in a nuclear sub underneath the Arctic icecap and a fire happens on the sub, do you want the second-best firefighting foam? I mean, really, do you? The second-best means it takes more time, and it takes more water. I don't think you do. But this is where we stand. The amendment creates both an unrealistic burden and a litigation problem, and the EPA cannot possibly fulfill our requirement to review all PFAS for inclusion in the clean air policy in 5 years. We only have 29 methods of determining per- and polyfluorinated compounds right now, just 29. There are 7,866, and the amendment says to do it in 5 years. I wish it could be done. I have been here a long time. Government moves slowly. When we throw all these sites into the Superfund, people are going to be hollering about it for 40 years. I read the list earlier of all these Superfund sites that haven't been remediated. Now, we are just going to expand that. Pull up the map of the country and all those red States, either that is going to be where all the Superfund sites are or that is where all the class action lawsuits are going to be filed in those States to take down those companies that are providing either safe medical devices or equipment for our career and best airplanes and technologies. Again, I want to applaud my colleague. I think this is something we could have done. We actually were talking about this in a compromise provision. We couldn't get there because of other issues. It is a valiant attempt. My friend is in the majority, and it is going to pass. Unfortunately, the Senate is not going to take up this bill, and the President already has a veto message on the bill. So it will be teed up for the next Congress, and I wish the gentleman luck. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman, my friend.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, so you are saying your State is not capable of doing it themselves? I mean, your State health department can't do the research? You are also talking about private wells on private property, bringing the Feds in to list the water systems for that. Obviously, under the system of Federal Government, we are raising some concerns on that amendment. Let me continue. If I have some time, we can go on. In addition to State departments of health that certify the laboratories--it is your department of health that certifies the laboratories that test the water, not EPA, as this legislation implies. It would place a lot of burdens on EPA to carry out a program that States and local governments could more easily and appropriately handle. It would also likely take more than a year to establish this program, which is all the bill provides in this statutory language. I believe this amendment also places serious unfunded mandates on States. Finally, I have questions about whether the information being collected and disseminated under this amendment can be done in a way that meets the proper risk communication strategies called for in the Brown amendment. That is why we have problems with this amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I appreciate my friend and colleague from Michigan. He has been very active on this issue for many years now, and I respect his intensity and his efforts. A couple of things, because a lot of the debate was initially just on the overall bill. It is the Senate that caused us not to enact all these provisions in the NDAA. That is why they are on record as not going to move this bill. We did have a chance for the Safe Drinking Water Act to be included in the final piece of legislation. That was blocked by someone, and now, here we are. The President has threatened to veto the act. You are correct about that. Mr. Kildee also raised the benefits of what we did do, and I listed them earlier, from the EPA to mandate that drinking water systems monitor for unregulated PFAS, provide grants to communities, require new reporting of PFAS under the Toxics Release Inventory program, require manufacturers and processors of PFAS to submit health and safety information--these are all law today--restrictions on new uses of long-change PFAS, guidance for appropriate destruction of per- or polyfluorinated compounds, require the Federal Government to work expeditiously with States to enter into binding cooperative agreements. That is particularly important for the gentleman's State, which was a success. Of course, I have many more. I would also like to highlight the appropriations bill, which included $2.8 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, with that $20 million going for this issue. You do adequately highlight the success that we made at the end of last year on these two programs. We don't want to diminish the success. I know it is not as far as a lot of people wanted to go, but there was some success. To your amendment, it is a federalism debate. Water wells in States are regulated, controlled, and tested by the States, not the EPA. Under this amendment, the Federal Government would have to collect and manage information about individuals and their property. This amendment, both broad and vague at the same time, would be an enormous expansion of the Federal Government into an area that has been governed by States. If these wells in the gentleman's State are not being tested, they are not being tested by his State, and I know his State is very aggressive.

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

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, this amendment expands EPA's Safer Choice program to include carpets, rugs, clothing, and upholstered furniture that do not contain PFAS. The Safer Choice program was not meant to cover products like this, and it will be extremely expensive and time-consuming to do so. Revisions to the program of this type are not consistent with the intent of the program and would require significant changes to the program to implement it effectively. To establish this standard, EPA would have to hold listening sessions and propose and finalize changes to the Safer Choice standard. Public involvement would have to be substantial. Most importantly, for consumers' information, labeling indicating the absence of PFAS does not necessarily mean a safer product, which undermines the purpose of the EPA program. In addition, when bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA, was used in baby bottles, companies and retailers who made bottles with other substances had no problem labeling their products as BPA-free. In some ways, this is a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign for corporations that can cut commercials for their products themselves. In some ways, the Federal Government needs to get into this area. A better way would be to have a collaborative among the EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Food and Drug Administration to make recommendations on how to convey any risk from these products. This is not the right way to address this issue. Madam Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.