Jan. 10, 2020 sees Congressional Record publish “PFAS ACTION ACT OF 2019”

Volume 166, No. 6 covering the 2nd Session of the 116th Congress (2019 - 2020) was published by the Congressional Record.

The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.

“PFAS ACTION ACT OF 2019” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H153-H164 on Jan. 10, 2020.

More than half of the Agency's employees are engineers, scientists and protection specialists. The Climate Reality Project, a global climate activist organization, accused Agency leadership in the last five years of undermining its main mission.

The publication is reproduced in full below:

PFAS ACTION ACT OF 2019

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Garcia of Texas). Pursuant to House Resolution 779 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 535.

Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) kindly take the chair.

{time} 0919

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 535) to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, with Mr. Cuellar (Acting Chair) in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, January 9, 2020, amendment No. 18 printed in part B of House Report 116-366 offered by the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Axne) had been disposed of.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Tlaib

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 printed in part B of House Report 116-366.

Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 36, line 18, after ``a disadvantaged community'' insert ``or a disproportionately exposed community''.

Page 37, after line 13, insert the following new paragraph:

``(3) Disproportionately exposed community.--The term

`disproportionately exposed community' means a community in which climate change, pollution, or environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, or youth.''.

Page 37, line 14, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.

Page 37, line 18, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to fight alongside Representatives Dingell and Kildee in protecting our water and environment. I also appreciate Chairman Pallone for working with us on this critical issue to Michigan and the Nation.

The amendment ensures frontline communities like mine who have been directly harmed by the lack of urgency to address the public health impacts due to environmental injustices have a true seat at the table when it comes to addressing this crisis.

I grew up in southwest Detroit which houses the most polluted ZIP Code in the State; where the smell isn't normal; where our kids go to schools that don't have clean drinking water, where our parks are closed down, literally, barred away from residents having access to it because the soil is too contaminated; and where so many of our residents live in fear that the polluting industry nearby is killing them.

Two communities I represent within Wayne County, Michigan, found PFAS contamination. In the recent Metro Times publication, there was a powerful, yet tragic, statement on what residents in 48217 are forced to live with. ``Gone are the fruit trees and vegetable gardens. Residents no longer grow produce because the air and the ground are too contaminated with hazardous substances.''

The amendment before us clearly defines disadvantaged, exposed communities and ensures that priority for infrastructure funding to combat PFAS go to these frontline communities like our own 48217 and other neighborhoods.

If we are not intentional about where we put our resources to address this crisis, then we are not serious about universal clean air and water. This amendment will ensure that we have equitable funding that goes to neighborhoods that have been ignored for far too long.

I urge you to support the frontline communities amendment and safeguard the health and environmental justice of the neighborhoods that have historically been victim of structural racism and disinvestment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), my good colleague and partner in this fight who is the cosponsor of this amendment.

Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Too often our communities of color are left behind. Too often, they are on the front lines of environmental injustice. That is why I am proud to cosponsor this bill with Representatives Tlaib and Ocasio-

Cortez.

Our amendment makes sure that help gets to the people who need it the most. It requires the newly established PFAS community water systems grant program to prioritize communities that are disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and public health impacts from pollution.

Many of those communities are communities like my very own district. Communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to PFAS contamination. They often face a variety of environmental threats, such as: exhaust from congested highways, water runoff or air pollution from toxic chemical facilities, and close proximity to landfills.

When a grant application to address PFAS contamination is under consideration, these communities that have exposure first and worst should get priority. It shouldn't be an afterthought. That is why this is a critical first step to ensuring the Safe Drinking Water Act prioritizes environmental justice.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Chair, again, I support this amendment and thank my colleagues for working on this.

Growing up in southwest Detroit, the stories of the smell, but not only the fact that we didn't understand why parks and certain chemicals and so forth were exposed to us, is so important. That is why this amendment is so critically important; not only for 48217, but the cities of Melvindale, as well as the Delray neighborhood within southwest Detroit, again, have been exposed to PFAS contamination.

These are two communities, literally, steps away from the Detroit riverfront, and that is why it is critically important for us to push forward on addressing the PFAS contamination across this Nation.

I want to thank my colleagues in understanding why it is important for the Great Lakes State of Michigan that we need to be able to take care of our frontline communities first to really be able to ensure that we have access to clean water universally.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, we obviously support the amendment.

Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Safe Drinking Water Act already makes special priority for what is termed ``disadvantaged communities'' which is based on affordability criteria.

I wish my colleagues who offered this amendment would have been here last night when we passed an amendment to support rich communities who have already funded their cleanup and are allowing them then to dip back into Federal funds to make the payment.

So they may have, if they had a chance to be here for that amendment, voted against communities that have already been able to afford to clean up, but we are going to dip into this money at the expense of poor communities. So that is kind of what occurred last night.

This covers a range of low-income communities that may have trouble paying for infrastructure needs and has been widely supported as an appropriate function of taxpayer support. This amendment creates a broad new category that disproportionately exposes, and which would appear to expand coverage beyond economic factors which may actually undermine the straightforward support for the poor and the disadvantaged already in statute.

I respect the desire to ensure prioritization to communities that may be particularly hard hit with other economic and environmental issues, but the workability of the new definition has not been closely examined and may complicate the provisions of resources to those communities that need it. A better way to do this would be to require a rulemaking to sort out the best approach to prioritize funding to disadvantaged people.

In a letter written by the water communities, one paragraph says--and I would hope my colleagues would listen to this--because in every community we have water companies that are supposed to provide safe drinking water to our citizens. So the water companies have written to us about this bill. And that is the American Water Works Association, the Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Association of Water Companies, the National Water Resources Association, the National Rural Water Association, and Water Environment Federation.

These are the people who are going to provide clean drinking water to our constituents, and this is what they say about this bill:

``Unfortunately, H.R. 535 would leave municipal water and wastewater system customers subject to financial liability for PFAS cleanup under CERCLA,'' i.e., the Superfund, ``even in cases where the system followed all applicable laws and regulations related to PFAS disposal. This is in direct contrast to the objective of holding polluters responsible.''

I include their letter in the Record.

January 8, 2020.Re Opposition to H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act.

Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations representing the nation's drinking water and wastewater utilities are writing to express our opposition to H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019. Unfortunately, the legislation fails to protect water system customers from liability for PFAS cleanup costs.

We believe that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) should be kept out of our nation's water supplies, and that PFAS polluters should be held responsible. The fundamental mission of water and wastewater utilities is to protect public health and the environment, and in doing so they must also be mindful of affordability and the financial burden borne by their customers and the communities they serve. Utilities are tremendously concerned about what PFAS is doing in their communities and, as they have done with all previous public health and environmental challenges, are committed partners in finding a solution to this problem.

However, Congress must make a distinction between entities that introduced PFAS into the environment, and water and wastewater systems that are on the front lines of cleaning up the contamination. Utilities are not the producers of PFAS, but the receivers of PFAS and must dispose of water and wastewater treatment byproducts containing traces of the chemicals. A water system that follows all applicable laws in its disposal of water treatment byproducts containing PFAS should not be held liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) for any further environmental cleanup costs related to these chemicals. Doing so would penalize customers twice: once when they make investments to remove PFAS from their waters, and again when they are forced to pay to cleanup PFAS contamination elsewhere.

Unfortunately, H.R. 535 would leave municipal water and wastewater systems customers subject to financial liability for PFAS cleanup under CERCLA--even in cases where the system followed all applicable laws and regulations related to PFAS disposal. This is in direct contrast to the objective of holding polluters responsible.

It is particularly disappointing that the manager's amendment proposed for H.R. 535 would offer a CERCLA liability shield to airports that are required to use firefighting foam containing PFAS, but fails to extend that same protection to water and wastewater systems who may be required to remove and dispose of PFAS. As receivers of PFAS, water utilities should be afforded the same liability protections that airports are being awarded in the legislation.

Again, we share the goal of keeping the nation's waters free of PFAS and holding accountable those entities that are responsible for environmental contamination. But because H.R. 535 would leave water system customers unprotected against liability for environmental cleanup of PFAS, we have no choice but to oppose the legislation in its current form.

Sincerely,American Water Works Association.Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies.National Association of Clean Water Agencies.National Association of Water Companies.National Water Resources Association.National Rural Water Association.Water Environment Federation.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, it is just amazing that last night, the National Journal published an article called: ``PFAS Bill Could Spark Tort `Bonanza'.''

{time} 0930

I will read from that: ``An association of U.S. trial lawyers with deep lobbying pockets and the ear of influential Democrats is helping to push a sweeping chemical-regulation package that could pave the way for a prolific legal bumper crop.''

This is not just a forever chemical debate. This is a forever litigation debate, litigation after litigation as Superfund sites get established. They are there for decades, as I quoted last night numerous times. We have Superfund sites that have been identified that are still unremediated 30 to 40 years after they were established.

This bill attempts to use the Superfund as the silver bullet to address this concern. I mentioned last night, but it is a new day: This is the first time in the history of the Superfund legislation that, in the Clean Water Act, we are legislatively identifying a chemical as hazardous not using the scientific process.

For that and all the other reasons, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Malinowski

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed in part B of House Report 116-366.

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 46, line 12, strike ``or cooking utensil'' and insert

``cooking utensil, or stain resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant coating not subject to requirements under section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act''.

Page 46, beginning on line 14, strike ``or cooking utensil'' and insert ``cooking utensil, or stain resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant not subject to requirements under section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act''.

Page 46, beginning on line 17, strike ``or cooking utensil'' and insert ``cooking utensil, or stain resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant coating not subject to requirements under section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.

Modification to Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Malinowski

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.

The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to Amendment No. 20 Printed in Part B of House Report No.

116-366

Offered By Mr. Malinowski of New Jersey

The amendment is modified to read as follows:__ Page 46, line 12, insert ``, or a stain resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant coating not subject to requirements under section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act'' before ``to meet''.__ Page 46, line 15, insert ``, or stain resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant coating'' before ``does not contain''.__ Page 46, line 18, insert ``, or stain resistant, water resistant, or grease resistant coating not subject to requirements under section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act'' before ``that the Administrator''.

Mr. MALINOWSKI (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the modification.

The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the original request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.

The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act, and my amendment to the bill, which gives manufacturers an opportunity to be transparent with consumers and make clear that their products are indeed free of PFAS.

PFAS chemicals are found in coatings that line products like nonstick pots and pans, waterproof clothing, and grease-resistant and fast-food containers, items that we use every day and rarely think about. We are now well aware of the devastating harm that these chemicals can cause, like growth and learning delays in infants and children, an increased risk of birth defects, weakened immune systems, decreased fertility, and an increased risk of cancer.

Each year, billions of pounds of these products are dumped into landfills or burned in incinerators, releasing PFAS pollutants into the air, water, and soil, contaminating the food we eat and the water we drink. In my district in New Jersey, there are over 133 contaminated sites, more than 30 of which are schools.

Right now, consumers have no way of knowing for sure whether products like the water-resistant spray that we put on our shoes and jackets or the stain-resistant sprays we put on our furniture, rugs, and carpets are or are not contaminated with PFAS coatings that can harm our health.

My amendment would alleviate this problem. It will add stain-, water-

, and grease-resistant coatings to the list of products eligible for a voluntary label indicating the absence of PFAS, which will allow consumers to make safer and more informed decisions about the products that we purchase.

We must start holding polluting companies accountable for the chemicals that they are putting into the products that we bring to our homes and give to our children, but we should also be giving companies that do the right thing and that protect consumers a way to be recognized and a way to be rewarded for responsible behavior.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to voting for this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Once again, this is simply about greater transparency. It is about giving consumers choice. It is about American companies that have done the right thing that are facing competition often from abroad, often from companies that have not done the right thing, giving them a chance to put a credible label on their products that says: This is safe. This is PFAS-free.

Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment. I hope that everybody accepts it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we addressed an amendment like this last night from the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree). Very similar, and I will raise the same objections.

I have been here a long time, and I actually remember the Alar scare. I also remember BPA, bisphenol A. That is the plastic--it was a kind of the same type--that was going to kill everybody, and we ought to ban it. We went through the scientific process and found out that it wasn't.

In the meantime, did we need the government to offer labeling a ``-

free'' product? The answer in the example of BPA is no.

Bisphenol A was used in baby bottles. Company retailers that made bottles with other substances had no problems. In fact, it was a great marketing attempt for them to say that it was BPA-free.

They didn't need government to do that. They did it because of the advertising and the consumer potential to do that.

There will be, and there are, companies trying to do the right thing. They should take advantage of that opportunity, especially in this environment when we are dealing with 7,866 per- and polyfluorinated compounds. The debate is that every one of those 7,866 compounds is hazardous and destructive to individuals. If you are making a product, this is a perfect time to be able to do that and say that it is PFAS-

free.

Why would we have the government do that? Some could argue that this is a corporate perk, that we are incentivizing and rewarding companies through government action to do something that if they are good stewards, they should be able to do on their own. That is why I have some concerns with this.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record another letter from numerous of these companies--some you would label bad actors; some you would label good actors--as they submitted a letter in opposition to this overall bill.

January 8, 2020.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: PFAS are a large and diverse group of chemicals with unique properties that have been used in a broad number of beneficial applications for years. Heightened attention to potential health effects of certain PFAS has led to an increased public concern and interest in new regulatory protections in this area.

We understand these concerns and are committed to working with legislators, regulators, and all stakeholders to establish risk-based standards that protect human health and the environment. We also support the development of a consistent approach and clear timelines for assessing and regulating specific PFAS across all relevant federal agencies to ensure that government regulations, actions, and communications are coordinated for maximum effectiveness.

Any federal action should not address PFAS as a class or with predetermined outcomes, but rather should be based on sound science and the weight of the scientific evidence. Further, Congress should not circumvent existing regulatory authorities. The Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other relevant agencies, should retain their traditional power to study PFAS and determine whether to regulate certain PFAS. Many provisions included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, signed into law at the end of last year, took important steps towards meeting those goals.

We look forward to working with you on this important matter as the legislative process continues. We oppose H.R. 535, the ``PFAS Action Act of 2019.''

Sincerely,

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Advamed, Airlines for America, American Chemistry Council, American Coatings Association, American Forest & Paper Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, Associated General Contractors of America, Flexible Packaging Association, Foodservice Packaging Institute.

International Liquid Terminals Association, National Association of Chemical Distributors, National Association of Manufacturers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS), Single Ply Roofing Industry, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, Specialty Graphic Imaging Association, TRSA--The Linen, Uniform and Facility Services Association.

Mr. SHIMKUS. They say in this letter: ``Any Federal action should not address PFAS as a class or with predetermined outcomes, but rather should be based on sound science and the weight of the scientific evidence.''

As I said before, this is the first time in the history of the country that we are labeling a chemical formulation as toxic politically using political science, not science.

They go on to say: ``Further, Congress should not circumvent existing regulatory authorities. The Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other relevant agencies, should retain their traditional power to study PFAS and determine whether to regulate certain PFAS. Many provisions included in the National Defense Authorization Act''--we talked about that a lot last night--``for Fiscal Year 2020, signed into law at the end of last year, took important steps toward meeting those goals.'' There is a list of 30 or 40 organizations. I am not going to read them all this morning.

I appreciate my colleague's amendment. We actually were close when we were thinking about getting a bipartisan bill to bring to the floor. This was one of the provisions that was on the table. My friends, I believe, couldn't say yes, so here we are, fighting this bill that the Senate will not take up, and the President will not sign, and you will have to wait for the next Congress to address this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski).

The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Levin of Michigan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed in part B of House Report 116-366.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 2, after line 15, insert the following new subsection:

(c) Review.--

(1) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report containing a review of actions by the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up contamination of the substances designated pursuant to subsection (a).

(2) Matters included.-- The report under paragraph (1) shall include an assessment of cleanup progress and effectiveness, including the following:

(A) The number of sites where the Environmental Protection Agency has acted to remediate contamination of the substances designated pursuant to subsection (a).

(B) Which types of chemicals relating to such substances were present at each site and the extent to which each site was contaminated.

(C) An analysis of discrepancies in cleanup between Federal and non-Federal contamination sites.

(D) Any other elements the Administrator may determine necessary.

(3) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In this subsection, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the following:

(A) The Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives.

(B) The Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires, within 5 years, a comprehensive report to Congress by the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, regarding the actions the Agency will take to clean up and remediate PFAS contamination sites once we pass the important bill before us into law.

I would like to begin by thanking my friend Chairman Pallone and his staff for working with me on this, as well as my fellow Michiganders, Congresswoman Dingell, Congressman Upton, and Congressman Kildee, for their bipartisan leadership on this bill.

I am proud that this bill includes my bill cosponsored with Representative Khanna, the PFAS Safe Disposal Act, which prohibits unsafe incineration of PFAS. We need to ensure that when PFAS chemicals are destroyed by incineration, PFAS particles are not emitted into the air. The monumental effort of PFAS cleanup will be for naught if PFAS is simply transmitted from water and soil into the air we breathe.

We in Michigan know all too well the growing threat that PFAS chemicals pose to our communities and our water resources. They have been linked to cancer, damage to both reproductive and immune systems, developmental issues, and changes in liver, immune, and thyroid functions.

The troubling reality is that both industry and the EPA itself have known about the risks from PFAS chemicals for decades. We know, for example, that industry studies have demonstrated the adverse health effects of these chemicals since as early as 1950. That is 70 years ago. We also know that even though the EPA has recognized the risks of PFAS since at least 1995, the Agency is continuing to allow new PFAS chemicals onto the market to this day.

By passing H.R. 535 into law, we can finally begin to reverse decades of the EPA's failure and finally deliver the protections impacted communities need in both the short and long term. But after decades of the EPA failing to treat this matter with urgency, we need to make sure that the cleanup process that will be set in place, once we finally designate PFOA and PFAS as hazardous substances, is both timely and effective.

My amendment is a commonsense transparency and accountability measure that requires the EPA to submit a comprehensive review to Congress after 5 years of cleanup efforts. The report required by my amendment will include the number of sites that have to be remediated, the types of PFAS chemicals present at each site, an analysis of discrepancies and cleanup between Federal and non-Federal contamination sites, and more.

For the sake of our constituents and after so many years of inexcusable threats to their health, Congress must ensure that EPA's PFAS cleanup efforts are effective.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the Speaker of the House.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and congratulate him on his important amendment. I hope this important study will be part of that legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to come to the floor to join our colleagues, the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the former chair, Mr. Upton, in their bipartisan support of this legislation.

I salute Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, a crusader in this urgent mission to protect our communities from PFAS chemicals.

I also thank Mr. Tonko, the chair of the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The list goes on and on, and I will name some more.

Last year, our Members worked relentlessly to pass bold legislation to tackle the PFAS crisis. We salute the Members whose bills were included in the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act agreement reached by the House.

{time} 0945

Unfortunately, at the end of the year, the Senate GOP refused to join the House to secure full, robust protections against PFAS chemicals, and key provisions were cut from the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate GOP obstruction is why we are here today.

We are also here today because our distinguished chairman, Mr. Pallone, promised that we would have a chance to vote on robust legislation after the first of the year. I thank the chairman.

PFAS chemicals are a serious public health threat, contaminating the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we eat. These forever chemicals--which do not break down easily--are exposing millions of Americans to liver disease, asthma, thyroid dysfunction, multiple forms of cancer, and further health threats.

Today, nearly all Americans, including newborn babies, expectant mothers, and children, have PFAS in their blood; and up to 110 million people may be drinking tainted water, including, as our colleagues from Michigan have indicated, the challenge in their State indicated by the leadership and demonstrated on the floor in a bipartisan way on this issue.

Our colleague from Hoosick Falls, New York, Mr. Delgado, has been a champion on this issue. Their contamination from a plastics factory raised the level of PFAS chemicals in residents' blood to 100 times the national average, Mr. Shimkus.

In Chincoteague, Virginia, near Maryland, where I grew up, contamination from NASA Wallops Flight Center forced the local community to find an entirely new drinking water supply. And we thank Congresswoman Luria for her leadership in all of this.

And Mr. Pappas, also with Annie Kuster, has a situation in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where contamination from Pease Air Force Base poisoned the drinking water of thousands of residents, including children and infants.

Mr. Chair, before we won the majority, we had a hearing. It really was about a number of issues, environmental justice being one of them. Reverend Barbera brought people from all over the country to talk about this. I particularly remember our conversations in the testimony of Peggy Price.

She came and told the story of her family and how they were affected by what was happening at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. It was a very sad story. Their families suffered, the parents, the children--just a horrible situation. They were serving our country at Camp Lejeune, and they were victimized by the water supply there.

Particularly egregious, is the epidemic of contamination on military sites, as I mentioned just now, and more than 400 sites across the United States are affected. It is unacceptable that our men and women who sacrifice to keep us safe around the world face this danger in their health at home.

Sadly, some big corporations and the EPA have known about the risks from PFAS chemicals for decades, but they have failed to prevent the spread of contamination. The Trump administration's EPA is breaking its own promises every day that it delays and puts polluters ahead of the American people.

In stark contrast, the House is taking action. We are cleaning up communities by designating PFAS as a hazardous substance by the EPA, which is the key barrier to cleaning up military and industrial sites.

We are also creating new, robustly funded grants, in partnership with States, to help with cleanup and remediation efforts. Hopefully, we will be adding this important study that Mr. Levin is proposing to this legislation.

And we are helping stem the tide of further contamination with tough, new testing reporting and monitoring requirements, strict limits on the introduction of new PFAS chemicals, limits on air emissions, and banning unsafe incineration--strong measures to hold contaminating companies accountable.

Last month, the Senate GOP fought to prevent many of these lifesaving measures from becoming law in the NDAA. Now, Senator McConnell will have to explain once again to the American people why he is blocking our bipartisan action to clean up contaminated communities.

I urge a strong vote on this legislation to keep the American people healthy and safe and, again, salute all of those who have worked so hard to bring this legislation to the floor in a bipartisan way.

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

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 45 seconds remaining.

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, while people may have all kinds of opinions on the underlying issue, this amendment is simply about sunshine. It simply is about good government: Will our Federal agencies tell our Article I body here what they are up to? I think it just makes all kinds of sense to ask them to give us a comprehensive report after a reasonable period of time, so I hope everyone can support this amendment.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am happy to follow the Speaker, and I do have great respect for her. It gets me in trouble in my district every now and then when I talk about our relationship, but it has to be said that I can't allow a revisionist history to report on what occurred, especially on the Safe Drinking Water Act and in the final negotiations.

It is well-reported that there was a three-corner agreement. One corner couldn't get there, and that is why we didn't have it. I won't name names. I won't point fingers. But to point this over at our friends in the other side of the building where they had come to an agreement, that is just not accurate.

I would also point out that, in this bill, we are exempting airports from Superfund liability. We are not exempting medical devices. We are not exempting military contractors. We are not exempting water companies. We are exempting airports who use, probably the most toxic of all these chemicals: firefighter foam. Somehow, they were able to get a carve-out where other companies, industries, could not.

The only other organization that benefited was the Trial Lawyer Association. I want to mention that again. It is amazing, the article came out last night. I am not sure how that happened, but it states in the article:

An association of U.S. trial lawyers with deep lobbying pockets and an ear of influential Democrats is helping to push a sweeping chemical regulation package that could pave the way for a prolific legal bumper crop.

Now, where would that happen in this bill? Well, it would happen in the Kildee amendment that we passed last night, which would federalize information publication that States should handle. We can get that at the Federal level, then the trial bar could go through this information. The Pappas amendment had unrealistic deadlines, so they had this litigation based upon not being able to meet a deadline.

Then you have section 2 of the Superfund designation without science and unrealistic review deadlines.

Section 4, toxic labeling of unrealistic risks without a review.

Section 15, Clean Air Act designation without science and unrealistic review deadlines.

And the Brindisi amendment, we passed, that makes it marginally better, but, of course, not good enough for us to be able to accept that--or at least me--in the vote on the floor.

So, if this colleague of mine would amend this amendment and say let's have transparency on the class action lawsuits, then the litigation and the legal costs of doing this--we know that Superfund designation is not a silver bullet to cleanup, and I used this numerous times last night.

Old Springfield, Vermont, was added on the Superfund list, September 8, 1983. Guess where it is 36 years later? Still on the Superfund list.

Colbert Landfill, Spokane, Washington, added September 8, 1983. Guess what it is? Still a Superfund site 36 years later.

We should do a transparency look at how much litigation and money has been spent, both by the government and lawyers, on these Superfund sites. And, if we want to talk about transparency, I think that would also be a good way. Maybe we could have a bipartisan agreement on timelines and remediation, but also follow the money. Where is the money going?

So this amendment does not require informing Congress of private-

sector actions to clean up PFAS under Superfund and is unclear how much cleanup is being done by other Federal agencies. Plus, this is something that the Government Accountability Office or the congressional committees could do without such expense to the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Slotkin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 printed in part B of House Report 116-366.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 47, after line 15, insert the following:

(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the head of the U.S. Fire Administration and other relevant Federal departments or agencies, shall report to Congress on the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency and other relevant Federal departments and agencies to identify viable alternatives to firefighting foam and other related equipment containing any PFAS.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to the PFAS Action Act, which would require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with other relevant government agencies, to report to Congress on efforts to identify viable alternatives to PFAS firefighting foam and other related equipment containing PFAS.

PFAS contamination hits particularly close to home for me and my constituents. We in Michigan are confronting widespread PFAS contamination in our water, chemicals that we know are linked to cancer and other diseases.

This past summer, I toured Strawberry Lake, part of Livingston County's beautiful chain of lakes in my district, where foam resulting from PFAS buildup is visible in plain sight.

I held a forum focused on PFAS contamination in Pinckney, Michigan, a community that has been under a ``do not eat fish'' advisory for over a year and a ``do not touch foam'' advisory for many months. The more than 200 attendees expressed deep concern about the impact of PFAS contamination on their health, safety, and livelihoods, and had simple questions about how to know whether their water is safe to drink, eat fish from, or even touch.

In September, I met with Brighton Fire Chief Michael O'Brien and fire chiefs from across Livingston County and discussed their concerns about exposure to firefighting foam that contains high concentrations of PFAS.

PFAS presents alarming health risks. According to the CDC, exposure to PFAS can affect growth, learning, and behavior in infants and older children; lower a woman's chance of getting pregnant; increase the risk of cancer; and impact the immune system. In fact, one of my constituents, who spent his career as an auto mechanic and was exposed to PFAS-contaminated materials on a daily basis, is now connecting his diagnosis of MS, or an autoimmune disease, to his exposure to PFAS at work.

In Michigan, the high levels of PFAS have been detected in 34 sites, including at Diamond Chrome Plating in my district.

In addition, these chemicals have been found at some level in municipal drinking water serving more than 2 million people across the State.

PFAS has been detected in 54 Michigan schools, including 5 schools in my district.

Last summer, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services issued an emergency ``do not eat'' advisory regarding all fish from sections of the Huron River in my district after fish from Kent Lake were discovered to contain very high levels of PFAS.

Let me be clear: I believe that access to clean water out of your tap is a right and not a privilege.

{time} 1000

I believe that environmental security is homeland security. If it is threatening the safety and security of your family and preservation of your way of life, that is homeland security.

When Michigan families can't be confident that the water they are giving their children to drink won't make them sick or give them a learning disability; when they can no longer fish the rivers or hunt in the areas they have hunted for years with their families, that is a threat to our security, to our way of life.

It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, or a Republican, or an Independent, if you are going to hand your child a glass of water, you should be confident it won't cause cancer or other lifelong health issues. That is your family, and that is their safety.

My amendment would simply require the EPA to report to Congress on efforts to identify viable alternatives to products and equipment containing PFAS, including firefighting foam used on our military bases.

The PFAS Action Act of 2019 does a great deal to meet the threat of PFAS contamination with robust legislation that responds to it. And my amendment will hold Federal agencies accountable for finding viable alternatives to prevent further PFAS contamination.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I do not believe I will oppose the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.

There was no objection.

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

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I have no speakers and I am prepared to close after the gentleman closes.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has the right to close. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I ask for the bill to be supported, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman brings up an issue about firefighter foam. She talks about military installations. She does not talk about commercial aviation and waterway issues which are exempted in this bill.

Again, I am not sure why we are wanting to clean up all PFAS contamination, the world is ending, but we exempt airports. We don't exempt medical devices.

Let me hold up this. This was used last night. This is a medical device that is inserted into a child, maybe an unborn child, to close a hole in the heart. FDA said this is safe to insert into a heart. You want to talk about daily exposure? Here is daily exposure in an infant child.

So the nexus between the gentlewoman's amendment and this debate is that maybe when we are investigating firefighter foam for alternatives, maybe we are going to investigate alternatives for this type.

FDA has approved this. So why are we going to possibly ban chemicals?

We also mentioned last night that the Food and Drug Administration has claimed PFAS lining for food packages is safe. So we already have government entities that have investigated portions of the PFAS world.

Remember, we are talking about 7,866 different permutations; not one chemical, not two chemicals, but 7,866. And this is the first time in the history of our Nation that, without science and due diligence, we are going to label a chemical as toxic. That is part of the objection.

Let's use real science. I get beat up all the time, being a science-

denier, climate change.

Here, my friends on the Democrat side aren't ready to rely on science to address each of these 7,866 different applications. In fact, they are trying to, in this legislation, cause a rush to judgment, create an inability for the EPA to make a decision. So then, the companies can be sued because there is no way they can meet the timelines based upon this bill.

I would like to also read from the American Council of Engineering Companies letter, a letter that I will ask, at the appropriate time, to submit to the Record; and it says this: ``By designating certain PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under CERCLA,'' which is the Superfund, ``as called for in H.R. 535, we are concerned that such action could upset the progress already made to address this challenge, divert resources away from more pressing threats to water quality, and impose significant costs and liability on our water utility clients and the ratepayers they serve.''

Mr. Chairman, I include the letter I just referenced in the Record.

American Council of

Engineering Companies,

Washington, DC, January 9, 2020.Hon. Frank Pallone,Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,House of Representatives, Washington, DC.Hon. Greg Walden,Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Walden: On behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC)--the business association of the nation's engineering industry--we wish to express our concerns over H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act. While we agree that aggressive steps are needed to protect water resources from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination, we believe that ongoing efforts at the federal level to develop risk-based regulations offer a more effective approach to address this problem.

ACEC represents over 5,500 engineering companies and thousands of engineering professionals who work on a daily basis to improve the nation's water infrastructure and protect human health and the environment. While PFAS chemicals have been in wide use for many decades, concerns have emerged in recent years regarding the health effects of certain types of PFAS. In response to this, federal and state regulators, as well as water supply, wastewater and other stakeholders are working together to define the public health risks of the PFAS chemicals as well as consideration of technologies to cost-effectively mitigate those risks.

The Council supports this deliberative, consistent and data-driven approach to developing risk-based PFAS standards. By designating certain PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under CERCLA (Superfund), as called for in H.R. 535, we are concerned that such action could upset the progress already made to address this challenge, divert resources away from more pressing threats to water quality, and impose significant costs and liability on our water utility clients and the ratepayers they serve.

We would respectfully urge the House to reconsider this approach, and instead work to support and where necessary enhance the existing regulatory framework and action plan.

Sincerely,

Linda Bauer Darr,

President & CEO.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I already asked for inclusion in the Record a letter from the local municipal water plants, or the rural water associations, or the for-profit-owned water companies who said this makes it more difficult for us to clean up the water. We are going to be held to Superfund liability. We have to pay the court costs.

Now we have exempted airports. We haven't exempted the water companies. That is really just a pass-through. They are receiving, they are cleaning up, and then they are disposing, but we are not going to exempt them. We are going to exempt airports.

We are not going to exempt medical device manufacturers who are saving the lives of unborn children who have daily exposure of PFAS; and this is a lifesaving application.

This is just one of many. I could pull up heart stents. Last night we also talked about F-16s and our defense industry.

Maybe, with this amendment, we will do due diligence and find a suitable chemical formula that will replace this. So I applaud it. I think it is well thought of. It is meaningful.

I would also like to, in the end, because this will probably be my last time to be able to talk on this. We, on both sides of the aisle, really need to thank legislative counsel, because of the short timeframe they had in the amendment offerings, their response to the majority's concerns and writing. And actually, obviously, we are probably more difficult because we are trying to really dig in and find the fallacies of the coming amendments.

So my personal thanks to legislative counsel and professional staff who worked tirelessly on behalf of both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin).

The amendment was agreed to.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 116-366 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:

Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Burgess of Texas.

Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Balderson of Ohio.

Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Pappas of New Hampshire.

The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Burgess

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, noes 247, not voting 28, as follows:

AYES--161

AbrahamAllenAmashAmodeiArmstrongArringtonBabinBaconBairdBaldersonBanksBarrBergmanBiggsBilirakisBishop (NC)Bishop (UT)BostBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)BucshonBuddBurchettBurgessByrneCalvertCarter (GA)ChabotCheneyClineCloudColeCollins (GA)ComerConawayCookCrenshawCurtisDavidson (OH)Davis, RodneyDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDuncanDunnEmmerEstesFergusonFleischmannFloresFoxx (NC)FulcherGaetzGianforteGibbsGonzalez (OH)GoodenGosarGraves (GA)Graves (LA)Graves (MO)GriffithGrothmanGuestGuthrieHagedornHarrisHartzlerHern, KevinHerrera BeutlerHice (GA)Higgins (LA)Hill (AR)HollingsworthJohnson (LA)Johnson (OH)Johnson (SD)JordanJoyce (OH)Joyce (PA)KatkoKellerKelly (MS)Kelly (PA)King (IA)KinzingerKustoff (TN)LaHoodLaMalfaLambornLattaLeskoLongLucasLuetkemeyerMarshallMassieMcAdamsMcCaulMcClintockMcKinleyMeadowsMillerMitchellMoolenaarMooney (WV)MullinMurphy (NC)NewhouseNormanNunesOlsonPalazzoPalmerPencePerryPetersonRatcliffeReschenthalerRice (SC)RigglemanRobyRodgers (WA)Roe, David P.Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rose, John W.RoyRutherfordScaliseSchweikertScott, AustinSensenbrennerShimkusSmith (MO)Smith (NE)SpanoStauberSteilSteubeStewartStiversTaylorThornberryTimmonsTiptonWagnerWalbergWaldenWalorskiWaltzWatkinsWeber (TX)WenstrupWestermanWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWomackWoodallWrightYoho

NOES--247

AdamsAguilarAllredAxneBarraganBassBeattyBeraBeyerBishop (GA)BlumenauerBlunt RochesterBonamiciBoyle, Brendan F.BrindisiBrown (MD)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCarbajalCardenasCarson (IN)CartwrightCaseCasten (IL)Castor (FL)Castro (TX)Chu, JudyCicillineCisnerosClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyCooperCorreaCostaCourtneyCox (CA)CraigCristCrowCuellarCunninghamDavids (KS)Davis (CA)Davis, Danny K.DeanDeFazioDeGetteDeLauroDelBeneDelgadoDemingsDeSaulnierDeutchDingellDoggettDoyle, Michael F.EngelEscobarEshooEspaillatFinkenauerFletcherFortenberryFosterFrankelFudgeGabbardGallagherGallegoGaramendiGarcia (IL)Garcia (TX)GoldenGomezGonzalez (TX)GottheimerGreen (TN)Green, Al (TX)GrijalvaHaalandHarder (CA)HastingsHayesHeckHiggins (NY)HimesHoldingHorn, Kendra S.HorsfordHoulahanHoyerHudsonHuffmanHuizengaHurd (TX)Jackson LeeJayapalJeffriesJohnson (TX)KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKhannaKildeeKilmerKimKing (NY)KrishnamoorthiKuster (NH)LambLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LawrenceLawson (FL)Lee (CA)Lee (NV)Levin (CA)Levin (MI)Lieu, TedLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujanLuriaLynchMalinowskiMaloney, Carolyn B.Maloney, SeanMastMatsuiMcBathMcCarthyMcCollumMcEachinMcGovernMcNerneyMeeksMengMooreMorelleMoultonMucarsel-PowellMurphy (FL)NapolitanoNealNeguseNorcrossNortonO'HalleranOcasio-CortezOmarPallonePanettaPappasPascrellPerlmutterPetersPhillipsPingreePlaskettPocanPorterPoseyPressleyPrice (NC)QuigleyRaskinReedRice (NY)RichmondRooney (FL)Rose (NY)RoudaRouzerRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyanSablanSan NicolasSanchezSarbanesScanlonSchakowskySchiffSchneiderSchraderSchrierScott (VA)Scott, DavidSewell (AL)ShalalaShermanSherrillSiresSlotkinSmith (NJ)Smith (WA)SotoSpanbergerSpeierStantonStefanikStevensSuozziSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TitusTlaibTonkoTorres (CA)Torres Small (NM)TrahanTroneTurnerUnderwoodUptonVan DrewVargasVeaseyVelaVelazquezViscloskyWasserman SchultzWatersWatson ColemanWebster (FL)WelchWextonWildWilson (FL)YarmuthYoungZeldin

NOT VOTING--28

AderholtBradyBuchananBuckCarter (TX)CrawfordEvansFitzpatrickGohmertGonzalez-Colon (PR)GrangerHunterJohnson (GA)KindKirkpatrickLewisLoudermilkMarchantMcHenryMeuserNadlerPayneRadewagenSerranoSimpsonSmuckerThompson (PA)Walker

{time} 1033

Ms. JAYAPAL, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. COOPER, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. POSEY, Mrs. AXNE, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Messrs. ESPAILLAT and VAN DREW changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Stated for:

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 9.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Balderson

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, noes 239, not voting 27, as follows:

AYES--170

AbrahamAllenAmashAmodeiArmstrongArringtonBabinBaconBairdBaldersonBanksBarrBergmanBiggsBilirakisBishop (NC)Bishop (UT)BostBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)BuckBucshonBuddBurchettBurgessByrneCalvertCarter (GA)ChabotCheneyClineCloudColeCollins (GA)ComerConawayCookCrenshawCurtisDavidson (OH)Davis, RodneyDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDuncanDunnEmmerEstesFergusonFleischmannFloresFoxx (NC)FulcherGaetzGianforteGibbsGonzalez (OH)GoodenGosarGraves (GA)Graves (LA)Graves (MO)Green (TN)GriffithGrothmanGuestGuthrieHagedornHarrisHartzlerHern, KevinHice (GA)Higgins (LA)Hill (AR)HoldingHollingsworthHurd (TX)Johnson (LA)Johnson (OH)Johnson (SD)JordanJoyce (OH)Joyce (PA)KatkoKellerKelly (MS)Kelly (PA)King (IA)KinzingerKustoff (TN)LaHoodLaMalfaLambornLattaLeskoLongLucasLuetkemeyerMarshallMassieMcAdamsMcCarthyMcCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcKinleyMeadowsMillerMitchellMoolenaarMooney (WV)MullinMurphy (NC)NewhouseNormanNunesOlsonPalazzoPalmerPencePerryRatcliffeReedReschenthalerRice (SC)RigglemanRobyRodgers (WA)Roe, David P.Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rose, John W.RouzerRoyRutherfordScaliseSchraderSchweikertSensenbrennerShimkusSmith (MO)Smith (NE)SpanoStauberStefanikSteilSteubeStewartStiversTaylorThornberryTimmonsTiptonWagnerWalbergWaldenWalorskiWaltzWatkinsWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestermanWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWomackWoodallWrightYohoZeldin

NOES--239

AdamsAguilarAllredAxneBarraganBassBeattyBeraBeyerBishop (GA)BlumenauerBlunt RochesterBonamiciBoyle, Brendan F.BrindisiBrown (MD)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCarbajalCardenasCarson (IN)CartwrightCaseCasten (IL)Castor (FL)Castro (TX)Chu, JudyCicillineCisnerosClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyCooperCorreaCostaCourtneyCox (CA)CraigCristCrowCuellarCunninghamDavids (KS)Davis (CA)Davis, Danny K.DeanDeFazioDeGetteDeLauroDelBeneDelgadoDemingsDeSaulnierDeutchDingellDoggettDoyle, Michael F.EngelEscobarEshooEspaillatFinkenauerFletcherFortenberryFosterFrankelFudgeGabbardGallagherGallegoGaramendiGarcia (IL)Garcia (TX)GoldenGomezGonzalez (TX)GottheimerGreen, Al (TX)GrijalvaHaalandHarder (CA)HastingsHayesHeckHerrera BeutlerHiggins (NY)HimesHorn, Kendra S.HorsfordHoulahanHoyerHudsonHuffmanHuizengaJackson LeeJayapalJeffriesJohnson (GA)Johnson (TX)KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKhannaKildeeKilmerKimKing (NY)KrishnamoorthiKuster (NH)LambLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LawrenceLawson (FL)Lee (CA)Lee (NV)Levin (CA)Levin (MI)Lieu, TedLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujanLuriaLynchMalinowskiMaloney, Carolyn B.Maloney, SeanMastMatsuiMcBathMcCollumMcEachinMcGovernMcNerneyMeeksMengMooreMorelleMoultonMucarsel-PowellMurphy (FL)NapolitanoNealNeguseNorcrossNortonO'HalleranOcasio-CortezOmarPallonePanettaPappasPascrellPerlmutterPetersPetersonPhillipsPingreePlaskettPocanPorterPoseyPressleyPrice (NC)QuigleyRaskinRice (NY)RichmondRooney (FL)Rose (NY)RoudaRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyanSablanSan NicolasSanchezSarbanesScanlonSchakowskySchiffSchneiderSchrierScott (VA)Scott, DavidSewell (AL)ShalalaShermanSherrillSiresSlotkinSmith (NJ)Smith (WA)SotoSpanbergerSpeierStantonStevensSuozziSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TitusTlaibTonkoTorres (CA)Torres Small (NM)TrahanTroneTurnerUnderwoodUptonVargasVeaseyVelaVelazquezViscloskyWasserman SchultzWatersWatson ColemanWelchWextonWildWilson (FL)YarmuthYoung

NOT VOTING--27

AderholtBradyBuchananCarter (TX)CrawfordEvansFitzpatrickGohmertGonzalez-Colon (PR)GrangerHunterKindKirkpatrickLewisLoudermilkMarchantMeuserNadlerPayneRadewagenScott, AustinSerranoSimpsonSmuckerThompson (PA)Van DrewWalker

{time} 1038

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Stated against:

Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 10.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Pappas

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, noes 168, not voting 26, as follows:

AYES--242

AdamsAguilarAllredAxneBarraganBassBeattyBeraBeyerBishop (GA)BlumenauerBlunt RochesterBonamiciBoyle, Brendan F.BrindisiBrown (MD)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCarbajalCardenasCarson (IN)CartwrightCaseCasten (IL)Castor (FL)Castro (TX)Chu, JudyCicillineCisnerosClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenCollins (GA)ConnollyCooperCorreaCostaCourtneyCox (CA)CraigCristCrowCuellarCunninghamDavids (KS)Davis (CA)Davis, Danny K.DeanDeFazioDeGetteDeLauroDelBeneDelgadoDemingsDeSaulnierDeutchDingellDoggettDoyle, Michael F.EngelEscobarEshooEspaillatFinkenauerFletcherFosterFrankelFudgeGabbardGallegoGaramendiGarcia (IL)Garcia (TX)GoldenGomezGonzalez (TX)GottheimerGreen, Al (TX)GrijalvaHaalandHarder (CA)HastingsHayesHeckHerrera BeutlerHiggins (NY)HimesHorn, Kendra S.HorsfordHoulahanHoyerHuffmanHurd (TX)Jackson LeeJayapalJeffriesJohnson (GA)Johnson (TX)KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKhannaKildeeKilmerKimKing (NY)KrishnamoorthiKuster (NH)LambLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LawrenceLawson (FL)Lee (CA)Lee (NV)Levin (CA)Levin (MI)Lieu, TedLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujanLuriaLynchMalinowskiMaloney, Carolyn B.Maloney, SeanMastMatsuiMcAdamsMcBathMcCollumMcEachinMcGovernMcKinleyMcNerneyMeeksMengMooreMorelleMoultonMucarsel-PowellMurphy (FL)NapolitanoNealNeguseNorcrossNortonO'HalleranOcasio-CortezOmarPallonePanettaPappasPascrellPerlmutterPetersPetersonPhillipsPingreePlaskettPocanPorterPoseyPressleyPrice (NC)QuigleyRaskinReedRice (NY)RichmondRooney (FL)Rose (NY)RoudaRouzerRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyanSablanSan NicolasSanchezSarbanesScanlonSchakowskySchiffSchneiderSchraderSchrierScott (VA)Scott, DavidSewell (AL)ShalalaShermanSherrillSiresSlotkinSmith (NJ)Smith (WA)SotoSpanbergerSpeierStantonStevensSuozziSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TitusTlaibTonkoTorres (CA)Torres Small (NM)TrahanTroneTurnerUnderwoodUptonVan DrewVargasVeaseyVelaVelazquezViscloskyWasserman SchultzWatersWatson ColemanWelchWextonWildWilson (FL)Yarmuth

NOES--168

AbrahamAllenAmashAmodeiArmstrongArringtonBabinBaconBairdBaldersonBanksBarrBergmanBiggsBilirakisBishop (NC)Bishop (UT)BostBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)BuckBucshonBuddBurchettBurgessByrneCalvertCarter (GA)ChabotCheneyClineCloudCole ComerConawayCookCrenshawCurtisDavidson (OH)Davis, RodneyDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDuncanDunnEmmerEstesFergusonFleischmannFloresFortenberryFoxx (NC)FulcherGaetzGallagherGianforteGibbsGonzalez (OH)GoodenGosarGraves (GA)Graves (LA)Graves (MO)Green (TN)GriffithGrothmanGuestGuthrieHagedornHarrisHartzlerHern, KevinHice (GA)Higgins (LA)Hill (AR)HoldingHollingsworthHudsonHuizengaJohnson (LA)Johnson (OH)Johnson (SD)JordanJoyce (OH)Joyce (PA)KatkoKellerKelly (MS)Kelly (PA)King (IA)KinzingerKustoff (TN)LaHoodLaMalfaLambornLattaLeskoLongLucasLuetkemeyerMarshallMassieMcCarthyMcCaulMcClintockMcHenryMeadowsMillerMitchellMoolenaarMooney (WV)MullinMurphy (NC)NewhouseNormanNunesOlsonPalazzoPalmerPencePerryRatcliffeReschenthalerRice (SC)RigglemanRobyRodgers (WA)Roe, David P.Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rose, John W.RoyRutherfordScaliseSchweikertSensenbrennerShimkusSmith (MO)Smith (NE)SpanoStauberStefanikSteilSteubeStewartStiversTaylorThornberryTimmonsTiptonWagnerWalbergWaldenWalorskiWaltzWatkinsWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestermanWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWomackWoodallWrightYohoYoungZeldin

NOT VOTING--26

AderholtBradyBuchananCarter (TX)CrawfordEvansFitzpatrickGohmertGonzalez-Colon (PR)GrangerHunterKindKirkpatrickLewisLoudermilkMarchantMeuserNadlerPayneRadewagenScott, AustinSerranoSimpsonSmuckerThompson (PA)Walker

{time} 1044

Mr. VAN DREW changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

So the amendment was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 11 and

``yea'' on rollcall No. 10.

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Clay). There being no further amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar) having assumed the chair, Mr. Clay, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 535) to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and, pursuant to House Resolution 779, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.

The amendments were agreed to.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. I am in its current form.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. Rodgers of Washington moves to recommit the bill H.R. 535 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the following amendment:

Page 10, line 14, insert ``, including any unborn child (as defined in section 1841(d) of title 18, United States Code)'' before the period at the end.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Washington?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this motion is the last opportunity to amend the bill, and it does so without delay in passage.

We all agree that PFAS chemicals that present health risks to the public should be cleaned up as quickly as possible, but it should be done according to the best available science.

The majority often likes to claim that they are the party of science. Unfortunately, this bill ignores science and facts for scoring political talking points by grouping together an entire class of PFAS chemicals. Some of these chemicals are essential to lifesaving medical devices; others provide for cutting-edge technologies in aerospace that are critical to our national security.

By ignoring scientific evidence, this bill would kill innovations that could help further lift people's standard of living and save lives.

I understand and share frustrations for slow cleanup of the dangerous PFAS chemicals. In my own district, Fairchild Air Force Base and Airway Heights, Washington, are dealing with PFAS. However, we just passed bipartisan legislation based on science through the NDAA that will ensure that affected communities are cleaned up quickly. This bill would ignore those efforts.

It is unprecedented that Congress would unilaterally classify chemicals under CERCLA. By doing so, Congress will designate communities like Airway Heights a Superfund site, significantly harming their ability to attract new investments and hurting property values.

Instead of trying to score political points, we should be proud of the bipartisan achievement of the NDAA and continue to work to clean up our communities and get results.

This amendment is a good faith effort to improve this legislation in a way that enhances its efforts to protect all Americans from harmful chemicals.

Section 5 of H.R. 535 seeks to guarantee protection of vulnerable populations from potential PFAS dangers in their drinking waters. It states that the new rules ``shall be protective of the health of subpopulations at greater risk.''

The Safe Drinking Water Act already identifies pregnant women as an at-risk group. However, there is not just one. When it comes to pregnant women who are at risk, there are two people at risk: the pregnant woman and the unborn child.

The science is clear. Technology today allows us to look inside the womb. We see the baby's development day by day, week by week. That person is the most vulnerable population that should be protected.

This motion to recommit is simple; it is clear; it is direct. It clarifies that the protection of vulnerable populations must include any unborn child.

Yesterday, Chairman Pallone recognized the potential harm these chemicals can have on child development. Today, Speaker Pelosi reiterated the importance of protecting expectant mothers. By rejecting this amendment, you would be further denying the science of the development of a child in the womb.

This motion is consistent with policy that EPA itself has employed: considering the impact of chemical exposures to babies in the womb. For example, in 2011, the EPA, under President Obama, decided to regulate certain chemicals in drinking water based in part on the impacts to the in utero person.

Congress also passed bipartisan legislation, a law in 2004, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, recognizing the personhood of an unborn child.

This motion makes a small but vital improvement to this bill. It is an improvement that is necessary to preserve the central goal of the bill's sponsors: protecting vulnerable populations.

If that is the majority's goal, then this amendment should be accepted. It does not strike or delay anything in the bill. It only clarifies what is considered a vulnerable population based on the same language in the bipartisan 2004 act.

Most importantly, it protects the unborn child, something that I hope everyone in this room can agree should be one of our greatest priorities: to protect people before they are born and at every stage of their life.

I urge my colleagues to support science by supporting my motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Clay). The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague, but I oppose this amendment because it is really nothing more than a political stunt.

This bill will protect communities across this country. The drinking water standard in this bill will be protective of the health of populations at greater risk, what we generally call vulnerable populations.

That requirement was opposed by the Republicans. Mr. Shimkus had an amendment to strike that provision of the bill. He opposed protecting vulnerable populations. I deeply respect my colleague, but he opposed it every step of the way; and yesterday, he withdrew that amendment.

If Republicans want to protect vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, infants, and children, they should support this bill.

Let's be very clear: PFAS is an urgent health and environmental threat, period, and no one can deny that.

The number of contamination sites, nationwide, is growing at an alarming rate, including our military bases--almost 400 military installations in this country.

Developed in the 1940s, PFAS is a forever chemical. It is in the blood of more than 99 percent of Americans. It poses potential health risks. We know it. EPA has known the risk for decades and allowed this contamination to spread.

EPA is not going to take care of this problem. Congress needs to act. The longer we wait, the worse the contamination becomes. The time is now to act on the PFAS Action Act. We have got to do it together. The American people count on us.

The bill is a strong and serious package, and it is supported by some Republicans. It will jump-start cleanups. It will get PFAS out of our drinking water. It will limit PFAS in the air. It will limit PFAS in our rivers and streams. It will drive and require comprehensive testing for PFAS, and it will give our first responders and consumers tools to protect themselves.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit and urge Members to support the underlining bill so we can work together to enact laws that protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-

minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute vote on passage of the bill.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, noes 219, not voting 24, as follows:

AYES--187

AbrahamAllenAmashAmodeiArmstrongArringtonBabinBaconBairdBaldersonBanksBarrBergmanBiggsBilirakisBishop (NC)Bishop (UT)BostBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)BuckBucshonBuddBurchettBurgessByrneCalvertCarter (GA)ChabotCheneyClineCloudColeCollins (GA)ComerConawayCookCrenshawCuellarCurtisDavidson (OH)Davis, RodneyDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDuncanDunnEmmerEstesFergusonFleischmannFloresFortenberryFoxx (NC)FulcherGaetzGallagherGianforteGibbsGonzalez (OH)GoodenGosarGraves (GA)Graves (LA)Graves (MO)Green (TN)GriffithGrothmanGuestGuthrieHagedornHarrisHartzlerHern, KevinHerrera BeutlerHice (GA)Higgins (LA)Hill (AR)HoldingHollingsworthHudsonHuizengaHurd (TX)Johnson (LA)Johnson (OH)Johnson (SD)JordanJoyce (OH)Joyce (PA)KatkoKellerKelly (MS)Kelly (PA)King (IA)King (NY)KinzingerKustoff (TN)LaHoodLaMalfaLambornLattaLeskoLipinskiLongLucasLuetkemeyerMarshallMassieMastMcAdamsMcCarthyMcCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcKinleyMeadowsMillerMitchellMoolenaarMooney (WV)MullinMurphy (NC)NewhouseNormanNunesOlsonPalazzoPalmerPencePerryPetersonPoseyRatcliffeReedReschenthalerRice (SC)RigglemanRobyRodgers (WA)Roe, David P.Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rooney (FL)Rose, John W.RouzerRoyRutherfordScaliseSchweikertScott, AustinSensenbrennerShimkusSmith (MO)Smith (NE)Smith (NJ)SpanoStauberStefanikSteilSteubeStewartStiversTaylorThornberryTimmonsTiptonTurnerUptonVan DrewWagnerWalbergWaldenWalorskiWaltzWatkinsWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestermanWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWomackWoodallWrightYohoYoungZeldin

NOES--219

AdamsAguilarAllredAxneBarraganBassBeattyBeraBeyerBishop (GA)BlumenauerBlunt RochesterBonamiciBoyle, Brendan F.BrindisiBrown (MD)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCarbajalCardenasCarson (IN)CartwrightCaseCasten (IL)Castor (FL)Castro (TX)Chu, JudyCicillineCisnerosClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyCooperCorreaCostaCourtneyCox (CA)CraigCristCrowCunninghamDavids (KS)Davis (CA)Davis, Danny K.DeanDeFazioDeGetteDeLauroDelBeneDelgadoDemingsDeSaulnierDeutchDingellDoggettDoyle, Michael F.EngelEscobarEshooEspaillatFinkenauerFletcherFosterFrankelFudgeGallegoGaramendiGarcia (IL)Garcia (TX)GoldenGomezGonzalez (TX)GottheimerGreen, Al (TX)GrijalvaHaalandHarder (CA)HastingsHayesHeckHiggins (NY)HimesHorn, Kendra S.HorsfordHoulahanHoyerHuffmanJackson LeeJayapalJeffriesJohnson (GA)Johnson (TX)KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKhannaKildeeKilmerKimKrishnamoorthiKuster (NH)LambLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LawrenceLawson (FL)Lee (CA)Lee (NV)Levin (CA)Levin (MI)Lieu, TedLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujanLuriaLynchMalinowskiMaloney, Carolyn B.Maloney, SeanMatsuiMcBathMcCollumMcEachinMcGovernMcNerneyMeeksMengMooreMorelleMoultonMucarsel-PowellMurphy (FL)NapolitanoNealNeguseNorcrossO'HalleranOcasio-CortezOmarPallonePanettaPappasPascrellPerlmutterPetersPhillipsPingreePocanPorterPressleyPrice (NC)QuigleyRaskinRice (NY)RichmondRose (NY)RoudaRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyanSanchezSarbanesScanlonSchakowskySchiffSchneiderSchraderSchrierScott (VA)Scott, DavidSewell (AL)ShalalaShermanSherrillSiresSlotkinSmith (WA)SotoSpanbergerSpeierStantonStevensSuozziSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TitusTlaibTonkoTorres (CA)Torres Small (NM)TrahanTroneUnderwoodVargasVeaseyVelaVelazquezViscloskyWasserman SchultzWatersWatson ColemanWelchWextonWildWilson (FL)Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--24

AderholtBradyBuchananCarter (TX)CrawfordEvansFitzpatrickGabbardGohmertGrangerHunterKindKirkpatrickLewisLoudermilkMarchantMeuserNadlerPayneSerranoSimpsonSmuckerThompson (PA)Walker

{time} 1105

Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

So the motion to recommit was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247, nays 159, not voting 24, as follows:

YEAS--247

AdamsAguilarAllredAxneBarraganBassBeattyBeraBeyerBishop (GA)BlumenauerBlunt RochesterBonamiciBoyle, Brendan F.BrindisiBrown (MD)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCarbajalCardenasCarson (IN)CartwrightCaseCasten (IL)Castor (FL)Castro (TX)Chu, JudyCicillineCisnerosClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyCookCooperCorreaCostaCourtneyCox (CA)CraigCristCrowCuellarCunninghamDavids (KS)Davis (CA)Davis, Danny K.DeanDeFazioDeGetteDeLauroDelBeneDelgadoDemingsDeSaulnierDeutchDingellDoggettDoyle, Michael F.EngelEscobarEshooEspaillatFinkenauerFletcherFortenberryFosterFrankelFudgeGabbardGallagherGallegoGaramendiGarcia (IL)Garcia (TX)GoldenGomezGonzalez (TX)GottheimerGreen, Al (TX)GrijalvaHaalandHarder (CA)HastingsHayesHeckHerrera BeutlerHiggins (NY)HimesHoldingHorn, Kendra S.HorsfordHoulahanHoyerHudsonHuffmanHuizengaHurd (TX)Jackson LeeJayapalJeffriesJohnson (GA)Johnson (TX)KapturKatkoKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKhannaKildeeKilmerKimKing (NY)KrishnamoorthiKuster (NH)LambLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LawrenceLawson (FL)Lee (CA)Lee (NV)Levin (CA)Levin (MI)Lieu, TedLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujanLuriaLynchMalinowskiMaloney, Carolyn B.Maloney, SeanMastMatsuiMcBathMcCollumMcEachinMcGovernMcKinleyMcNerneyMeeksMengMooreMorelleMoultonMucarsel-PowellMurphy (FL)NapolitanoNealNeguseNorcrossO'HalleranOcasio-CortezOmarPallonePanettaPappasPascrellPerlmutterPetersPetersonPhillipsPingreePocanPorterPoseyPressleyPrice (NC)QuigleyRaskinReedRice (NY)RichmondRooney (FL)Rose (NY)RoudaRouzerRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyanSanchezSarbanesScanlonSchakowskySchiffSchneiderSchraderSchrierScott (VA)Scott, DavidSewell (AL)ShalalaShermanSherrillSiresSlotkinSmith (NJ)Smith (WA)SotoSpanbergerSpeierStantonStefanikStevensStiversSuozziSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TitusTlaibTonkoTorres (CA)Torres Small (NM)TrahanTroneTurnerUnderwoodUptonVan DrewVargasVeaseyVelaVelazquezViscloskyWasserman SchultzWatersWatson ColemanWelchWextonWildWilson (FL)YarmuthYoungZeldin

NAYS--159

AbrahamAllenAmashAmodeiArmstrongArringtonBabinBaconBairdBaldersonBanksBarrBergmanBiggsBilirakisBishop (NC)Bishop (UT)BostBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)BuckBucshonBuddBurchettBurgessByrneCalvertCarter (GA)ChabotCheneyClineCloudColeCollins (GA)ComerConawayCrenshawCurtisDavidson (OH)Davis, RodneyDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDuncanDunnEmmerEstesFergusonFleischmannFloresFoxx (NC)FulcherGaetzGianforteGibbsGonzalez (OH)GoodenGosarGraves (GA)Graves (LA)Graves (MO)Green (TN)GriffithGrothmanGuestGuthrieHagedornHarrisHartzlerHern, KevinHice (GA)Higgins (LA)Hill (AR)HollingsworthJohnson (LA)Johnson (OH)Johnson (SD)JordanJoyce (OH)Joyce (PA)KellerKelly (MS)Kelly (PA)King (IA)KinzingerKustoff (TN)LaHoodLaMalfaLambornLattaLeskoLongLucasLuetkemeyerMarshallMassieMcAdamsMcCarthyMcCaulMcClintockMcHenryMeadowsMillerMitchellMoolenaarMooney (WV)MullinMurphy (NC)NewhouseNormanNunesOlsonPalazzoPalmerPencePerryRatcliffeReschenthalerRice (SC)RigglemanRobyRodgers (WA)Roe, David P.Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rose, John W.RoyRutherfordScaliseSchweikertScott, AustinSensenbrennerShimkusSmith (MO)Smith (NE)SpanoStauberSteilSteubeStewartTaylorThornberryTimmonsTiptonWagnerWalbergWaldenWalorskiWaltzWatkinsWeber (TX)WenstrupWestermanWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWomackWoodallWrightYoho

NOT VOTING--24

AderholtBradyBuchananCarter (TX)CrawfordEvansFitzpatrickGohmertGrangerHunterKindKirkpatrickLewisLoudermilkMarchantMeuserNadlerPayneSerranoSimpsonSmuckerThompson (PA)WalkerWebster (FL)

{time} 1119

So the bill was passed.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Stated against:

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I could not attend the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 13.

personal explanation

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was absent today due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall No. 9, ``no'' on rollcall No. 10, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 11, ``no'' on rollcall No. 12, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 13.

personal explanation

Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted

``yea'' on rollcall No. 9, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 10, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 11, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 12, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 13.

personal explanation

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, for personal reasons, I was unable to vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 5--Prev. Question, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 6--H. Res. 781, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 7--H. Con. Res. 83, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 8--H.R. 5078,

``yea'' on rollcall No. 9--Burgess of Texas Part B Amdt. 2, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 10--Balderson of OH Part B Amdt. 6, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 11--Pappas of NH Part B Amdt. 13, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 12--MTR, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 13--H.R. 535.

____________________

SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 6