Pfas Action Act of 2021

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight a dangerous implication of this bill and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

There is no disagreement that the Federal Government has a role to play in cleaning up the most heavily contaminated sites and establishing standards so that our water is safe to drink. We are united in this, both Republicans and Democrats.

While this bill shares the spirit of that, frankly, it got hopelessly lost along the way. Instead, it creates a mess of lawsuits.

We could have fixed this. Republicans have pointed out the pitfalls. Democrats say those pitfalls don't exist. Experts say, yes, they do. We could fix this.

In committee we discussed how this impacts a full suite of products, from medical devices to computer chips.

But there is one element that is particularly concerning to me. Under this legislation, a police department that purchases one of the most popular bulletproof vests to protect its officers against rising crime would now be subject to environmental lawsuits.

And here's why: A bulletproof vest becomes increasingly ineffective if it is exposed to moisture. As a result, it is protected by a waterproofing PFAS chemical to keep it dry and effective against bullets.

By imposing a de facto ban--and it is a de facto ban--on all PFAS chemicals, even those that pose no risk to human health or the environment, this legislation will significantly reduce the availability of lifesaving equipment.

Manufacturers, or others in the supply chain, will seek to avoid the PFAS liabilities created by this bill under CERCLA. So police departments, rather than worrying about protecting our communities, will now have to worry about whether or not they will be subject to an environmental lawsuit.

Instead, police departments themselves will be forced to make impossible decisions; continuing to use PFAS-containing, lifesaving equipment or risk huge legal liability when the equipment is disposed of.

This bill will bring entities like police departments, and anyone and everyone who is even remotely involved with PFAS material, under the wide dragnet of litigation that they don't have the resources to fight.

As Democrats seek to defund police across the country, police departments are already strapped for cash. So under this bill, we are forcing police departments to decide whether to defend themselves against lawsuits or purchase the material they need to keep their officers safe.

That is why I introduced a simple amendment that would limit the liability of police departments, first responders, and our military from being endlessly sued if they require these materials to protect themselves.

My amendment didn't limit the EPA's ability to actually regulate these chemicals or even determine which ones are safe or unsafe. Nor did it allow police departments to dispose of these products in an unsafe way and be shielded from consequences.

It just said, if a police department or first responder follows the letter of the law in dealing with these materials, they shouldn't be threatened with endless lawsuits. But, sadly, my colleagues didn't make my amendment in order.

So while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are desperately trying to prove that they support our police officers after a year of demonizing them, the bill shows that really nothing has changed.

But there is one more chance to make this right. I will be offering my amendment as the motion to recommit for this legislation. Our police officers need to know that Congress has their back, especially now. This motion to recommit is a chance to do just that.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and vote for my amendment to protect our police and our military and our first responders.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source