House Democrats added several amendments to regulate a class of cancer-related chemicals called PFAS to a defense spending bill on Monday.
The additions followed the failure of the chamber to add a broader amendment that would address the substances.
PFAS chemicals are also often called “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in nature and the human body. They are found in the fire fighting foam used by the military, as well as in a variety of household products.
The House version of the bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), is scheduled for a vote Tuesday.
On Monday, the House added amendments from the representatives. Antonio DelgadoAntonio Ramon DelgadoKyle Van De Water wins the New York Republican primaries to challenge the representative. Antonio Delgado Hispanic Democrats Build Capital with Big Primary Wins The Hill Campaign Report: Buzz Builds Around Warren for Vice President MORE (DN.Y.), Andy Levin
Andrew (Andy) Levin USA, Mexico ready for new post-NAFTA business era Members of the House rush to prepare for remote first votes Warren, Levin presents legislation for federal contact search program MORE (D-Mich.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) AND Ed Perlmutter
Edwin (Ed) George PerlmutterFor Security and Economic Recovery, Congress Must Prioritize Cannabis Banking Eight Surprises in House Democrats’ Coronavirus T Relief Bill Democrats introduce bill to include Cannabis Companies in Coronavirus Relief MORE (D-Colo.) Aiming to study or limit PFAS.
Levin’s provision would temporarily prevent the Department of Defense (DOD) from incinerating PFAS until the Secretary of Defense finalizes the disposal regulations.
The Delgado amendment would require all PFAS manufacturers to disclose any discharge of the substance greater than 100 pounds. Last year, the House required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to have manufacturers report releases of some types of PFAS in the same amount, but Delgado’s move would prevent the agency from applying a some exemption.
The Houlahan and Perlmutter amendments would increase or require PFAS studies.
However, late last week, a broader amendment tabled by the representatives. Debbie Dingell
Deborah (Debbie) Ann DingellTexas Democrat proposes legislation requiring masks at federal facilities Dingell pushes provision to reduce drunk driving in House of Representatives infrastructure package 18 states fight for conservative effort by expert group to freeze fuel efficiency standards MORE (D-Mich.) And Bill posey
William (Bill) Joseph Posey House Republicans urge the White House to support the TSA that gives travelers temperature controls. The House Republican presents a bill to delay paying members if they vote by proxy. Trump takes the lead to open Daytona 500 MORE (R-Fla.) That it would designate PFAS as a dangerous air pollutant in an attempt to clean up the substance was found to be outside the rules of the law.
“It is disappointing that my bipartisan amendment, which authorized the House earlier this year with a strong bipartisan vote, is ruled out of order before the NDAA due to budgetary points of order,” Dingell said in a statement after the fact.
“We can find ways to pay billions of dollar weapons systems or tax exemptions for the wealthy, and yet we cannot set safe drinking water standards for PFAS or clean contaminated sites for a chemical forever,” he added.
“When budget rules are such that we, the American people, are at a disadvantage by simply having polluters clean up their own mess or having the EPA guarantee safe drinking water under the authorities we already gave them, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we have set these rules. “
Politico reported Tuesday Supporters of stronger PFAS regulations may try to attack chemicals through a bill funded by the Department of the Interior and the EPA.
The House of Representatives passed a bill in January that would require a mandatory drinking water standard for PFAS and would be covered by the hazardous waste cleanup law, among other measures.
Democrats also tried last year to include PFAS measures in the NDAA, but many were stripped of the final version of the legislation.
Rebecca Kheel contributed.
.
