Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. The mechanisms for reporting on potential toxicants should allow citizens ready access to information on what they can do to alert authorities to environmental threats.

Mr. TONKO. The public is vital to the work of environmental protection, and I look forward to learning more about the residents of the Fifth Ward and surrounding communities, and the gentlewoman's efforts to address creosote contamination. And I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to the attention of the committee and Members of Congress.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire again about time remaining.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the House leadership for bringing forward this package today. I want to explain why it is critical that Members support this bill. The health and the safety of communities across our great country are compromised by these dangerous chemicals. For their sake, let's not pretend that nibbling at the edges with the latest NDAA is enough to declare victory. I have visited the communities and met the families who are dealing with the fallout from PFAS exposure and environmental contamination. They elected us to put their needs first, and they need more than half measures. I appreciate my Republican colleagues' willingness to work on cleanup of Federal facilities, but that simply is not enough. I cannot in good conscience go home this weekend and tell the people of Rensselaer County: ``We are cleaning up DOD sites, but we have no plan for the polluted industrial sites in Hoosick Falls, or any others like it around the country.'' It just isn't right. We need to take action under Superfund and hold PFAS polluters responsible, regardless of whether they are public or private. The bill also requires any national drinking water standard to, at a minimum, ensure vulnerable groups, including pregnant women, infants, and children, are protected. I won't tolerate EPA adopting an unsafe standard, and I do hope Members with impacted communities won't either. The bill includes other critical provisions to reduce PFAS exposure, empower consumers, and expedite cleanups. We have waited too long already for the administration to act. I fear we will keep waiting, or worse, deal with the consequences of unprotective actions. Until we enact these provisions, we cannot say that Congress has done its job. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment builds on an important piece of this bill, the guidance for firefighters and other first responders to minimize their risk from PFAS chemicals. This provision was developed by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, and I thank her for her leadership on addressing this important concern. Our first responders take enormous risks every day for the greater good. Cancer from occupational exposure should not be among those risks. Unfortunately, occupational-related cancers now account for 65 percent of the line-of-duty deaths for firefighters each year. Last year, Pat Morrison of the International Association of Fire Fighters testified before my subcommittee on the impacts PFAS in firefighting gear have had on firefighters. This is the single largest health-related issue facing the firefighting profession. I thank Representative Fletcher for her work in protecting firefighters, and I also thank the gentlemen from Georgia and California for their efforts on this important topic. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Woodall-DeSaulnier amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I remind everyone that PFOS/PFOA are dangerous contaminants that threaten individual lives and our communities, as our firefighters have pointed out, in various, various dimensions. Madam Chair, I rise to support the amendment and the overall bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, this amendment would strike the Superfund provision from this bill completely. It will significantly weaken this bill and leave hundreds of impacted communities in harm's way. What does the Superfund provision in this bill do exactly? H.R. 535 lists only PFOA and PFOS under Superfund and leaves decisions for all other PFAS to EPA. EPA has already committed to listing PFOA and PFOS under Superfund and has been working on the listings since 2018. So this bill does not prejudge EPA decisions. EPA has already made those decisions. The bill will speed up that listing so that cleanup of existing contamination starts sooner, which is critical. It also sets up a reasonable deadline for EPA to make decisions on other PFAS chemicals under Superfund to speed up any additional needed cleanups. Superfund cleanups are essential to public health, and for impacted communities, they can be the difference between health and sickness, between life and death. The question before Members on this amendment is whether cleanups of PFOA and PFOS should start right away or whether impacted communities can continue to wait. While EPA drags its feet, people in hundreds of impacted communities across the country will continue to be exposed and continue to be harmed. Pollution will spread from these sites into the environment, into sources of drinking water, and into our agricultural resources. And eventual cleanups will become harder and more costly. Madam Chair, impacted communities cannot afford to wait. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, though I do not plan to oppose this amendment.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, GenX is a group of PFAS chemicals that have been a particular concern for several communities. Last year, the Energy and Commerce Committee heard testimony from a member of one of those communities, Emily Donovan, of the group Clean Cape Fear. Emily testified about the burden of disease in her community, including her husband's cancer, and the burden of having to educate and protect her community without the protections and resources of our Federal environmental laws. Her group, Clean Cape Fear, had to seek donations to install drinking water treatment for the public schools of her town so that the children could have safe water to drink at school. That is just not right. So I appreciate these North Carolina Members raising the issue of GenX to help Emily and other people impacted by GenX. I thank the gentlemen for their amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and this bill. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I support the Hudson amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, this amendment explicitly includes GenX chemicals in the definition of PFAS covered by the legislation. I want to be clear that GenX are PFAS chemicals and are already covered by this provision, regardless of whether this amendment is adopted. I am happy to support, however, the amendment because we absolutely mean for this funding to be available to remove GenX from drinking water. But no one should interpret this amendment as implying that GenX are not already covered within the definition of PFAS. I also want to mention one important thing about GenX. We have heard a lot today about how PFOA and PFAS are dangerous, but that newer PFAS might be safer. I want to make certain that everyone understands, GenX is one of those supposedly safer alternatives. It is a set of short- chain PFAS that were developed to replace PFOA. GenX is a great example of why we need the moratorium on new PFAS included in this bill, because if EPA had the needed science in hand when GenX was introduced, communities in North Carolina, and nationwide, might never have been impacted. That is what we are trying to accomplish with this bill. We want to help the communities that have been impacted and head off future harmful pollution. I thank the gentlemen for their amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and this bill. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I appreciate the kind words from the gentleman from North Carolina. I appreciate working with him. I encourage my colleagues to support the Hudson amendment, his second amendment, and I will do likewise. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would block implementation of the important public health protections in this bill until the EPA administrator certifies that its PFAS Action Plan is completed. Let's be clear about something. This EPA is never going to complete that action plan. EPA has already failed to meet the weak deadlines it set for itself in that. We were supposed to have a regulatory determination for PFOA and PFAS in drinking water. We do not. We were supposed to have designations of PFOA and PFAS under Superfund. In fact, in EPA's action plan they note that they started that activity in 2018. They haven't gotten it done. We were supposed to have EPA action to require reporting of PFAS releases on the Toxics Release Inventory. We had to attach that to the NDAA to get it done. And, by the way, Republicans supported taking that action on NDAA. But even these specifics are giving this amendment too much credit. This is not a serious amendment because EPA's Action Plan is not designed to ever be completed. Many of the action items are characterized by the EPA itself as ongoing commitments. Here is an example. EPA committed to holding responsible parties accountable for PFAS releases into the environment. That task is an ongoing commitment that can never be completed. Evaluating new science, evaluating new PFAS, assessing new drinking water treatment technology, these are all things EPA will continue doing indefinitely. In fact, one of the stated purposes of EPA's action plan is ``preventing future contamination.'' When will EPA ever be done preventing future contamination? So this amendment would actually block the important provisions in this bill from ever being implemented. It would harm public health and leave our communities worse off. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Under the Clean Water Act, many industries discharge directly to municipal sewage treatment plants rather than discharge directly to surface waters. To address this practice, the Clean Water Act established a pretreatment program, which allows sewage treatment plants to work with industrial discharge connections to ensure that any industrial chemicals are properly treated or that these chemicals do not disrupt the normal functioning of the sewage treatment plants. However, a pretreatment program is only effective if the sewage treatment plant knows which chemicals are being introduced into their sewage treatment systems. Yet, there is no current Clean Water Act requirement that requires industrial discharges to tell the municipality that it plans to release PFAS-related chemicals into the sewage system. This amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Delgado) would address this current loophole. I support this amendment, and I appreciate the good work that the gentleman from New York has done not only for the residents of his congressional district but for the residents of this country. This is an important amendment. I appreciate the hard work he has done and the sensitivity he has shown.