I also want to highlight what we have done. I think some people have alluded to it, that nothing was done, but a lot was done in the National Defense Authorization Act. A little bit more was done in the end-of-year spending bill. This Safe Drinking Water Act provision could have been in, and we all know it. That could have been in law today. But it wasn't, as leverage for this bill that we are talking about today. In the NDAA, we require EPA to mandate that drinking water systems monitor for unregulated PFAS. That is law. In the NDAA, it is now law that we provide grants to communities to address emerging contaminants in drinking water, including PFAS. Currently, in law, we require new reporting for PFAS under the Toxics Release Inventory program. Currently, under law, it is required that manufacturers and processors of PFAS submit health and safety information. It is now law. Current law restricts new uses of long-chain PFAS. Now, what do I mean by long chain? That is when there are 7,866 different per- and polyfluorinated compounds. You have long-chain ones, and you have short-chain ones. We are banning the long chain, and again, we need scientific research, but this bans them all, whether or not they are safe. EPA law now is guidance for appropriate destruction. Now currently under law, it requires the Federal Government to work expeditiously with States to enter in a binding cooperative agreement concerning cleanup. Mr.…
On the recordJanuary 9, 2020
Source
govinfo.govShare & report
More from John Shimkus
May 16, 2019
I would reserve the balance of my time unless my colleague yielded back. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has the only time remaining.
May 16, 2019
I believe I have the right to close. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized.
Jan 9, 2020
My colleague, Mr. Hudson, has led the committee's efforts to address GenX on behalf of his constituents in North Carolina. He has pressed EPA to complete its human health toxicity assessment on GenX using science. This amendment takes the…
Jan 9, 2020
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…





