On the recordJuly 22, 2015
Before I yield to my colleague from Florida, let me respond. I am just trying to figure out whether the other side believes it is toxic or not toxic and if they trust the EPA or don't trust the EPA, because the EPA has ruled twice--in 1993 and 2000--that it was toxic. Then they roll out the final rule, which the other side is defending, and they say it is not toxic. The other side's debating point is really why we need the bill, because uncertainty is being created with the recyclable and reuse people. What was just talked about should cause everyone who is in the recyclable and reuse industry to say, ``We were right; we need this bill'' because the EPA, in 1993 and 2000, and the final rule. That is one part of the reason why we need the bill is to close that loophole because, yes, it is kind of ironic for me to be supporting the EPA, but the EPA has said it is not toxic. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
