John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

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

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This amendment makes it illegal for an industrial facility to introduce PFAS into a sewage treatment system without first disclosing information about that substance. This amendment effectively would create an entirely new and duplicative regulatory program under the Clean Water Act. This amendment is an ad hoc attempt at regulating PFAS without any consideration of whether or how these requirements would duplicate or mesh with the implementation of the EPA PFAS Action Plan or similar, already existing regulatory requirements under the Clean Water Act. The committee of jurisdiction for this provision is the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and they have held no hearings and conducted no stakeholder or scientific community engagement or consultation on this issue. As a result, this amendment is nothing more than an automatic reaction to regulate in a vacuum without risk information and without an understanding of its consequences. Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. I wish I could debate longer, but my time has expired.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, while I will not oppose this amendment, this section, in particular, is objectionable. But putting Agency decisions on their website sounds like a reasonable proposal. I am concerned about the timing of 60 days--that would be something that the Agency can do without a problem--and would have preferred that the Agency was invited to testify on sweeping an antiscience bill and its implications. I do not intend to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I will use the time that I have available. This amendment provides reimbursement funding for treatment technologies that were purchased up to 5 years ago. The program for which this amendment is offered is supposed to aid communities that have demonstrated problems and are economically disadvantaged and cannot afford the new technology because of the expense. That is why we have the program. This amendment suggests that community water systems that had the means and no expectation of Federal funding to pay for them get money for past work. It does not seem a fair use and diversion of taxpayer resources considering the expense of the technology that can currently meet the criteria of an eligible technology and the unknown nature of the communities that might need it. According to the EPA, there are few, if any, reverse osmosis treatment options that are economically viable on a mass scale that would remove all detectable amounts of PFAS. I understand the intent of the legislation, but our grant and loan programs are designed for communities that can't afford the expense. What my colleague is asking is that those communities that could and did make the investment, that they then be reimbursed, thus depriving communities that can't afford to do it an opportunity to obtain it. Mr. Chair, that is why we object to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose it.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, we support the amendment because we think it is important to have a national risk communication strategy. We get troubled and we get confused in this debate when we are going to declare 7,866 chemicals toxic without doing the basic science. Hopefully, as we move this forward, I believe we are going to find some of the 7,866 that are safe, so when we do a risk advisory, we are going to be able to say: These are bad; these are okay. What the bill does is just say they are all bad, and we don't have any science to prove that. I think we are close on PFOA, and we are close to that on PFOS. Again, we could have moved in a bipartisan manner to address those. We didn't do that. But we would like, as the EPA considers this and informing the public, that they look at hazard identification, exposure assessment, and a risk characterization. So risk is a combination of time and exposure over a period of time. You can talk to toxicologists. That is what they do. That was the glue that held the TSCA bill together was the focus on using science. Again, as you have heard tonight and you will hear tomorrow, our problem is that we are rushing legislation before we are allowing the science to truly evaluate this, and we are classifying, currently, all 7,866 as hazardous, which I don't believe they are. We have never, in the history of this Republic, under the Superfund Act, legislatively banned a chemical. We have always allowed scientific process. So I think the amendment is helpful in that it helps us be able to clarify when we do the scientific analysis what is safe, what is not. Informing the public is good. Transparency is great. We support the amendment. We appreciate the gentleman bringing it forward. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I understand this reflects an effort to improve this proposal from when we considered it under the National Defense Authorization Act, but I don't know what has changed or what it means since there has been no hearing or a markup record for me to consult to better appreciate this proposal or its impacts. There are 7,866 per- and polyfluorinated compounds listed on EPA's PFAS master list, an uninformed policy could carry massive unintended consequences on the liability and regulatory forms. As I read it, this amendment continues an antiscience mindset that seeks to regulate first, without adequate knowledge or understanding of the per- and polyfluorinated compound situation and then say, okay, we will figure it out later. This amendment covers PFAS substances that may not necessarily be what chemicals the industry is currently using, and simultaneously mandates creating new standards for every measurable PFAS chemical substance. This means EPA will be forced to divert resources to chase those PFAS that are no longer in use and may not be necessary. The amendment requires EPA to regulate PFAS compounds through the Clean Water Act without validated analytical methods for detention in wastewater; without established science or human and environmental impacts to determine appropriate and legally, scientifically defensible standards; and without an understanding of how best to treat and remove pollutants from wastewater, even if there was a validated method for detection. The deadline in this amendment will likely make EPA's work to implement it vulnerable to a legal challenge, delaying any real benefit that the proponents want from it, and enriching the trial bar in the process. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, we all support the territories having funding to address their drinking water needs. The biggest concern is, the territories really operate from a different system because they don't have the loan program. They don't really have the money to pay back the loan program. So there is a system by which grant funding is awarded to the territories to make up this need. So the concern is that the amendment may disenfranchise the States from taking from the revolving fund program, when the territories, historically, because they don't use that, they get more grant money. So that is why we oppose it. We think it is going to impact the States' ability to apply for these funds, and we think that the territories have a different method of grant funding to meet their qualities and needs. I request a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, many Members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to understand and address the issues related to per- and polyfluorinated compounds. While I oppose H.R. 535 for both policy and practical reasons, I commend all of my colleagues who have been engaged on this issue. Before I go into some of the more concerning aspects of this legislation, I think it is instructive to highlight a few facts. PFAS is not just one or two chemicals. According to the EPA, this class of chemicals includes more than 5,000 different substances with different properties, applications, and risks. In fact, EPA's master list of PFAS on its website includes 7,866 derivations. EPA does not have health effects data on the vast majority of PFAS. In fact, EPA recently announced scientifically valid methods--that means you are able to test to determine what it is--for just 29 of these 7,866. We don't have the capability even to understand if it is present because we don't have the capability even to identify them. EPA has actively engaged in a PFAS action program involving many disciplines across the agency. I recently talked to the Administrator to urge him to move as quickly as possible with multiple action items and timelines. Now, enter this bill, H.R. 535. This legislation requires aggressive regulatory responses to this diverse class of man-made chemicals without regard to science or risk. This is an unprecedented way of conducting science and flies in the face of decades of U.S. environmental policy. In fact, we have never legislatively banned a chemical in all the years since the Superfund, back in 1980. To my colleagues who love to preach science on climate change, I hear you, but you cannot walk away from the science debate when it doesn't support your policy position. Let me say that again. For my Democratic friends who love to preach science, you can't walk away from the science debate on this and walk away from the fact that we need a scientific study of this. They are trying to have it both ways. I know many of my Democratic colleagues think this bill is essential because they don't trust the EPA run by this President. I understand that is your call. But I would also ask you to think about the mandates you are placing on the Environmental Protection Agency, which will far outlast this administration. They will legally hamstring future ones from facing issues other than PFAS, whether it is lead or climate. I mentioned that science-based decisions that have supported EPA's work for years are being jettisoned, but that is just one feature. The more long-range trouble includes the automatic designation of PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances under the Superfund, which is called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, CERCLA. This designation may be warranted, but under this bill, it would come without knowledge of who is responsible, where PFAS contamination is, how serious it is, and without any public comment. In fact, my colleagues think that putting it in the Superfund is going to solve this problem and that they are going to be able to clean it up right away. Well, I have a list here of Superfund sites. The Superfund was set up in 1980. We have a site here that is still a Superfund site back to 1983. So those of you who think, put it in the Superfund, and it is all going to be cleaned up, good luck. If you have dealt with this issue, it is not going to happen, probably, in your lifetime. Don't get me started on the perverse strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability to releases of hazardous substances, a trial lawyer's bonanza. We know the majority understands this is an issue because the rule executed provisions relieving airports from Superfund liability. Plus, the bill requires EPA to review all 7,864 PFAS in 5 years to determine without public comment whether they present a substantial danger. We can't do 29 in 20 years. How are we going to do 7,866 chemicals in 5 years? It just can't be done. While a Superfund designation for just PFOS and PFOA may seem reasonable, the reality is section 15 of H.R. 535 deems all PFAS as hazardous air pollutants under Clean Air Act section 112(b). This automatically makes the entire PFAS class hazardous under the Superfund law. As I mentioned, innocent parties like drinking water utilities that just treated what they got from their source water are hostage to endless liability for cleanup, regardless of their personal contribution. In fact, I would argue they didn't make any contribution. Why not exclude the water districts from Superfund liability if they are just passthroughs? No, we are taking care of the airports, but we are not protecting municipal water systems, co-op water systems, and other sources of drinking water, and we are going to put additional mandates and costs on them. I know communities with PFAS pollution want it cleaned up quickly, but nothing, as I said before, with CERCLA is fast. It is always more expensive than you think, and the stigma of the designation scars a community's economy and dampens its future prospects. Other significant problems with this legislation include section 4, which places a commercial moratorium on new PFAS chemicals for 5 years, even though Federal law already prevents any unsafe chemical from entering the market until EPA scientifically reviews it and determines its safety. This delays cleaner, greener, and safer chemicals from coming on the market. Let me repeat this. Existing law bans and bars any new chemical or new use of an existing chemical from going to the market unless EPA signs off on that and it meets a tough safety standard. This bill places an arbitrary ban on top of that review. Next-generation heart valves, car brakes, solar panels, and military equipment all will be stopped from coming to market because of this. Section 3 creates an unrealistic mandate on EPA to require all manufacturers and processor testing of PFAS. This requirement overlaps one that companies send all their existing PFAS information to the EPA by 2023. Regardless, why even bother doing real science when you have already made a decision based on political science? More practically, does EPA even have the resources to keep up with such a demand? We could have asked them had they been invited to testify on this legislation. These are not minor concerns. They sparked opposition, especially in the Senate, and are the reason why these items were not included in the National Defense Authorization Act. If this process is making good law instead of messaging, I would urge my colleagues to keep that in mind when voting. We can do better. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a cardiothoracic surgeon.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman yield for purposes of colloquy?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Just to clarify: one is that we are exempting airports from Superfund liability, but we are not exempting medical devices that are FDA approved in infants' bodies?

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that device that you have is a per- or polyfluorinated compound; is that correct?

Mr. SHIMKUS. And it is FDA approved?