Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

house Bill H.R. 535

Should the EPA Designate PFAS as Hazardous Substances & Monitor Their Presence in Water Systems?

Argument in favor

This bill would address the threat posed by PFAS contamination in the air, soil, and water by establishing standards for their safe disposal. It would also require community water systems to monitor for the presence of PFAS, and establish grants for states & water systems to address the presence of PFAS.

Ticktock's Opinion
···
01/10/2020
Yes. This group of chemicals are not biodegradable but stay in the environment for decades as they accumulate. They cause cancer and disrupts variety of other biological functions from low birth weights to thyroid, kidneys, liver and immune system. This chemical group permeates the entire eco system’s animals and plants. The important thing to remember is they have been used since the 1950s, they accumulate in your body, they impede biological function and they are carcinogenic.
Like (107)
Follow
Share
jimK's Opinion
···
01/10/2020
This bill makes sense. It sets up a monitoring program and scientific assessments for these widely used chemicals that do not break down and have been shown to have detrimental side effects. The process outlined addresses issues of how much is too much, how much is land, air and water borne, and quantifies the associated health hazards. It sets up a reasonable timeline for studies before imposing penalties, giving cities and industry time to react and prepare for potential resulting regulations. It is a well thought out process for assuring that the extent of public health risks are known in advance of enforcement, as well as finding realistic methods for disposal. It is one of the more thoughtful and forward looking pieces of legislation I have seen recently- in that it outlines a long term process for assessing and dealing with a long-term health hazard and is not a redundant band-aid ‘nit’ of legislation designed solely for election year ‘creds’.
Like (93)
Follow
Share
Dave 's Opinion
···
01/10/2020
The far bigger question should be “how can the EPA be restored back to a level to effectively do its job?” Trump has gutted the EPA with deregulatory executive orders that denies all science and caters to the fossil fuel industry and lobbyists and has replaced many of its dedicated staff with his “dig baby dig” minions. This man is enemy #1 to the environment and he could care less about our safety. Greed. It’s all about greed. Same situation in Australia. Their leaders also have ignored the climate scientists and warnings for decades in favor of the carbon industries and look what’s happening there.
Like (57)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

While the federal government needs to help states that are disproportionately affected by PFAS contamination, more scientific research needs to be done to understand how the more than 5,000 chemicals classified as PFAS work before this bill’s aggressive mandates are imposed. More moderate steps should be taken in the interim.

Joseph's Opinion
···
01/10/2020
Not the responsibility of the federal government
Like (14)
Follow
Share
Robert's Opinion
···
01/10/2020
We have do do something to stop poisoning our drinking water. Why I do not like this bill is that prevents the EPA from fining polluters for 5 years. Why the delay? People are being poisoned!
Like (7)
Follow
Share
Just.Dave's Opinion
···
01/10/2020
@Dicr: Actually, history shows that democrats prefer dirty water. Look at Flint, Michigan. That was a dem that chose to use the contaminated water source. This wasn't their first of these bad decisions, and it won't be the last. So, go ahead and continue to test them out on your own people as you already do. Maybe when people start dying - oh, wait they already are... maybe people will wake up and stop voting in democrats that are willingly, knowingly poisoning them. Oh, as for my vote of opposition... It's just to oppose the left. Nothing more.
Like (6)
Follow
Share

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house Passed January 10th, 2020
    Roll Call Vote 247 Yea / 159 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Environment and Climate Change
      Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
    IntroducedJanuary 14th, 2019
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • IntroReferral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  • Floor
    Mrs. Rodgers (WA) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (text: CR H162)
  • Floor
    Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H153-164)
  • Floor
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • Floor
    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 247 - 159 (Roll no. 13).
  • Floor
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 187 - 219 (Roll no. 12).
  • Floor
    The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Rodgers (WA) motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment including language 'unborn child' to the testing procedure described in such national primary drinking water regulation by publishing the procedure or method in the Federal Register in accordance with section 1401 (1)(D).
  • Floor
    Mrs. Rodgers (WA) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  • Floor
    The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
  • Floor
    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
  • Floor
    The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 535.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Slotkin amendment No. 22.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Levin (MI) amendment No. 21.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Malinowski amendment No. 20, as modified.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Tlaib amendment No. 19.
  • Floor
    The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
  • Floor
    Considered as unfinished business.
  • Floor
    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 247 - 159 (Roll no. 13). (consideration: CR H153-164)
  • Floor
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 187 - 219 (Roll no. 12). (text: CR H162)
  • Floor
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 779. (consideration: CR H116-142)
  • Floor
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 535 as unfinished business.
  • Floor
    On motion that the Committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
  • Floor
    Mr. Tonko moved that the Committee rise.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Axne amendment No. 18, as modified.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Golden amendment No. 17.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Brindisi amendment No. 16.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Brindisi amendment No. 15.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Plaskett amendment No. 14.
  • Floor
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Pappas amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment, and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Tonko demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the Pappas amendment until a time to be announced.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Pappas amendment No. 13.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Brown (MD) amendment No. 12.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Rice (NY) amendment No. 11.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Tonko amendment No. 10.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Kildee amendment No. 9
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Pingree amendment No. 8.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Delgado amendment No. 7
  • Floor
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Balderson amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment, and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Tonko demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the Balderson amendment until a time to be announced.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Balderson amendment No. 6.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Hudson amendment No. 5.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Hudson amendment No. 4.
  • Floor
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Burgess amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment, and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Burgess demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the Burgess amendment until a time to be announced.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Burgess amendment No. 2.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 779, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Woodall amendment No. 1.
  • Floor
    GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 535.
  • Floor
    The Speaker designated the Honorable Daniel T. Kildee to act as Chairman of the Committee.
  • Floor
    House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 779 and Rule XVIII.
  • Floor
    Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 535 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
  • Floor
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 779.
  • Floor
    Rule H. Res. 779 passed House.
  • Floor
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 779 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 535 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
  • Calendars
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 289.
  • Discharge
    Committee on Transportation discharged.
  • Committee
    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 116-364, Part I.
  • Committee
    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 31 - 19.
  • Committee
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • Committee
    Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
  • Committee
    Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • Committee
    Subcommittee Hearings Held.
  • Committee
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
  • Committee
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
  • Committee
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change.
  • Committee
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change.
  • IntroReferral
    Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house Passed January 10th, 2020
    Roll Call Vote 247 Yea / 159 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Environment and Climate Change
      Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
    IntroducedJanuary 14th, 2019
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    Ticktock's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    Yes. This group of chemicals are not biodegradable but stay in the environment for decades as they accumulate. They cause cancer and disrupts variety of other biological functions from low birth weights to thyroid, kidneys, liver and immune system. This chemical group permeates the entire eco system’s animals and plants. The important thing to remember is they have been used since the 1950s, they accumulate in your body, they impede biological function and they are carcinogenic.
    Like (107)
    Follow
    Share
    Joseph's Opinion Against
    ···
    01/10/2020
    Not the responsibility of the federal government
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    jimK's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    This bill makes sense. It sets up a monitoring program and scientific assessments for these widely used chemicals that do not break down and have been shown to have detrimental side effects. The process outlined addresses issues of how much is too much, how much is land, air and water borne, and quantifies the associated health hazards. It sets up a reasonable timeline for studies before imposing penalties, giving cities and industry time to react and prepare for potential resulting regulations. It is a well thought out process for assuring that the extent of public health risks are known in advance of enforcement, as well as finding realistic methods for disposal. It is one of the more thoughtful and forward looking pieces of legislation I have seen recently- in that it outlines a long term process for assessing and dealing with a long-term health hazard and is not a redundant band-aid ‘nit’ of legislation designed solely for election year ‘creds’.
    Like (93)
    Follow
    Share
    Dave 's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    The far bigger question should be “how can the EPA be restored back to a level to effectively do its job?” Trump has gutted the EPA with deregulatory executive orders that denies all science and caters to the fossil fuel industry and lobbyists and has replaced many of its dedicated staff with his “dig baby dig” minions. This man is enemy #1 to the environment and he could care less about our safety. Greed. It’s all about greed. Same situation in Australia. Their leaders also have ignored the climate scientists and warnings for decades in favor of the carbon industries and look what’s happening there.
    Like (57)
    Follow
    Share
    Dicr's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    Let’s try them out in republican strongholds. Let them be the guinea pigs. If they start to die off will ask the survivors if it’s time to start believing scientists again.
    Like (43)
    Follow
    Share
    Leslie's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    When there is scientific evidence of harm then substances should be restricted & those wishing to use them should need to prove they are not harmful. An Australian systematic literature review of 221 publications through 2017 shows there is harm in varying levels. 1) higher blood cholesterol levels responsible for heart disease 2) higher Uric acid levels reducing kidney function 3) higher incidence of kidney & testicular cancer A Nordic Council of Ministers analysis of PFAS exposure also concludes higher incidence of kidney cancer. https://rsph.anu.edu.au/files/PFAS%20Health%20Study%20Systematic%20Review_1.pdf http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1295959/FULLTEXT01.pdf
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    Robert's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    No brainer. Ban this chemical.
    Like (24)
    Follow
    Share
    MarianToon's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    Support Debbie Dingell HR 535 STOP the negligence of water safety! Where are the pro lifers ? Crickets... So serious to STOP polluters! Educate yourself on PFA’s Montana Rep Greg Gianforte votes Nay. 2020 Gianforte is running for Governor of Montana and has donated over 600K to National Republican Party, I’m told! Vote Whitney Williams for Governor 2020
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    Henry's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    We continue to see more and more chemicals in our water. We need to be vigilant on what we allow manufacturers put in our water. We shouldn't water down EPA we should strengthen their authority.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    Robert 's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    But why would we expect Trump and the GOP to do anything to protect our health under the depleted EPA? They have rolled back 95 EPA protections endangering the environment and American lives. Read it here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    burrkitty's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    The most basic principle of Toxicology is “The dose makes the poison”. That means we MUST know the doses and monitor their movements. To do otherwise is irresponsible and unethical.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Polly's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    We have dangerous levels of pfas in rivers here in North Carolina. We need safe disposal of PFAs now!
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Mark 's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    ABSOLUTELY! WHO TRUSTS THIS ADMINISTRATION TO FOLLOW THROUGH??
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Mike's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    This seems an appropriate measure to pass as we move towards a more environmentally responsible model of decision-making and governing. If corporations can’t find the will to so themselves, government should not hesitate to step in for the greater good.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Ethan's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    We already know these substances are toxic. We can study the 5,000+ PFAS WHILE we regulate them . We adjust the regulations as we learn more instead of waiting for more harms to manifest before we take action.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Verena's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    We need to clean up our environment. This is a step toward that. Our health is at risk.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Sea's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    Water is life Protect it
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Thelma's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    Please protect the environment for our children and grandchildren.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Kathleen's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    With all the deregulations tRump has ordered he doesn't give a rat's ass about this. Oh hell no! He probably wouldn't even take a sip of water from a faucet! Thing were being monitored and companies were being held responsible to clean it up but tRump has seen to it to get rid of those who did their jobs. Yes we need all monitoring in place again! Get rid of trump and the trumpets and get true professional people who care about us and our planet back in charge...period!
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    larubia's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/10/2020
    Yes, there is evidence to support that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans like: low infant birth weights, negative effects on the immune system, cancer, and thyroid hormone dysfunction. Although, we no longer make these dangerous substances in the USA anymore, other countries do & we import their products containing PFAS. “People can also be exposed to PFAS chemicals if they are released during normal use, biodegradation, or disposal of consumer products that contain PFAS. People may be exposed to PFAS used in commercially-treated products to make them stain- and water-repellent or nonstick. These goods include carpets, leather and apparel, textiles, paper and packaging materials, and non-stick cookware.... Drinking water can be a source of exposure in communities where these chemicals have contaminated water supplies.” Once exposed, PFAS accumulates in the body, leading to negative effects on health. Not only should we monitor PFAS levels in land, air & water and develop safety standards, we also need to develop testing to determine human exposure. We need to work on ways to decrease exposure, including denying trade of goods with PFAS.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE