On the recordJanuary 8, 2020
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. {time} 1300 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.…
Source
govinfo.gov




