SD House defeats bill requiring ‘forever chemical' labels on firefighting gear
Rep. Kevin Van Diepen, R-Huron, speaks with lawmakers on the South Dakota House floor during the governor's budget address on Dec. 3, 2024. Van Diepen opposed a bill Wednesday that would have required PFAS labeling on firefighting gear. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
PIERRE — Legislation that would have required protective firefighting equipment purchased by fire departments in South Dakota to be labeled with its 'forever chemical' status failed Wednesday in the state House of Representatives.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s and don't break down easily in the environment or in the human body. The chemicals can be found in everything from firefighting foam to thermal and water-resistant clothing to soil and water. Research indicates PFAS exposure may be linked to negative developmental and reproductive effects, and an increased risk of some cancers.
The federal government finalized phased-in limits on some types of PFAS in drinking water earlier this year. PFAS has been found in preliminary testing of Mount Rushmore drinking water and in the Big Sioux River.
'Forever chemicals' found in Big Sioux River, based on preliminary data
Senate Bill 163 would have required South Dakota fire departments' future purchases of coats, coveralls, footwear, gloves, helmets, hoods and trousers to have a permanent label from the manufacturer identifying whether the material includes PFAS.
Occupational cancer is the leading cause of line-of-duty death in the fire service, and the International Association of Firefighters attributes 66% of firefighter deaths between 2002 and 2019 to cancer.
Rep. David Kull, R-Brandon, carried the bill on the House floor, saying that the legislation would send a message to companies to develop PFAS-free gear and protect South Dakota firefighters from increased cancer risks.
The National Fire Protection Association, a nonprofit organization that develops and publishes safety codes and standards, issued new standards in August 2024. The standards require manufacturer-suppliers of firefighting safety gear to test their materials for some types of PFAS.
Lawmakers who spoke against the bill largely cited opposition from local fire chiefs, saying the legislation would amount to government overreach by the state. The state Department of Public Safety and the South Dakota Joint Fire Council opposed the legislation during its committee hearing.
'We're going to make them spend more money on things that they could buy cheaper because it doesn't have a label,' said Rep. Kevin Van Diepen, R-Huron, 'and we're going to force them to do this.'
The House voted 57-13 to defeat the legislation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up So it's basically a wash. Advertisement That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. Advertisement 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Advertisement Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. Advertisement 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The changes coming to Trump's 'big beautiful bill have little to do with Elon Musk
Washington was on two parallel tracks this past week when discussing President Trump's "big, beautiful bill." On one front: The nation's capital was transfixed by a seismic fight between Elon Musk and President Trump, centered on the cost of the $3 trillion tax and spending bill. On another front: Republican leaders steadily advanced the pricey package with only a few changes apparently on offer. "Pedal to the metal," Senate Majority Leader John Thune offered in a speech Thursday near the height of the Musk drama — ignoring promises from the world's richest man to oust lawmakers who didn't join his effort to kill the bill. Republicans instead appeared to move closer to passage. They previewed changes that will be of interest to taxpayers and businesses, but with little to fulsomely address the critique from Musk and others around the package's price tag. In spite of Musk's campaign and multiple government and independent analyses that found at least $2.4 trillion in new red ink, Thune dismissed Musk this week by saying "we're a long ways down this track" and that his party is "rowing in the same direction." Thune may be overstating things a touch, with a vocal group of fiscal conservatives emboldened by Musk suggesting they will vote no. But Republican leaders from the president on down echoed Thune's position throughout the week. Stifel's Brian Gardner offered a bottom line in a note this past week, suggesting the fighting "makes for great TV and fodder ... but it is unlikely to fundamentally change the composition of the tax bill." "Musk's sway among Republican voters is limited," he added. The week saw a flurry of negotiations over changes to the House package, but, perhaps Washington being Washington, even the cost-saving changes appear to have been immediately spoken for. A meeting on Wednesday with the president, Thune, and members of the Senate Finance Committee ended with a focus on two changes. The first could save significant money by paring back a $40,000 tax deduction in the House bill for state and local taxes (SALT). Any changes there will face fierce opposition when the bill returns to the House, but the Washington Post reported this week that Trump has even indicated he is willing to lower the deduction. But any savings there may be quickly eaten up by the second bit of news this week, which concerns making some business tax incentives permanent. These tax deductions to businesses involve property depreciation, interest expenses, and R&D and are currently temporary in the House package. But an array of key Senators are keen to make them permanent (and more expensive). It's still a matter of some debate, with some hawks like Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin having told reporters he is looking to keep those tax breaks temporary and that Trump isn't sold. Johnson had emerged as a fierce critic of the package over spending and is also threatening to reform or break the package into different parts. He would need at least three Republican senators to join him and stand up to what is expected to be a fierce White House pressure campaign. Another key business-world change in the offing that emerged this week involves a provision that says no state may make its own law to regulate artificial intelligence in the coming decade. The need for changes there became evident when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia acknowledged she hadn't been aware of the provision when she voted yes in the House, but that she would flip to no if it stayed in place. Those proposed revision — seen this week as part of a larger spectrum package released by the Senate Commerce Committee — would change the House plan for a 10-year outright ban to a system that blocks some federal broadband funding if a state passes certain AI laws. Tech companies will be watching those developments closely, but they're not expected to have much impact on the bill's price tag. Another possible change could actually push up the price tag, with a growing debate around changes in the House bill to Section 899 of the IRS code, focused on what Republicans call "discriminatory foreign countries." The provision would allow the president to impose new taxes to combat the practices. Removing that change could cut into future government revenues, allowing the president to levy fewer taxes as a result. Other changes could also be coming that might increase the price tag, with some senators still concerned that current cost-saving measures go too far. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has been outspoken on one of the key changes around limiting Medicaid benefits, writing in a recent New York Times op-ed that cuts will hurt the working class and that the core of the issue is "will Republicans be a majority party of working people or a permanent minority speaking only for the C-suite?" Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
FLASHBACK: Musk accused Trump, GOP leaders of not wanting to cut spending — here's where they said they would
Elon Musk's fiery feud with President Donald Trump spilled onto the top Republicans in Congress, where the tech billionaire questioned if their zeal to cut spending had disappeared. Musk launched into a social media assault this week against Trump's "big, beautiful bill," and accused Republicans of crafting a "disgusting abomination" full of wasteful spending. What started as a rant against the bill turned into pointed attacks against Trump, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. 'He's Not A Big Factor': Trump's Senate Allies Dismiss Elon Musk's Calls To 'Kill The Bill' The tech billionaire and former head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) lamented the bill as not cutting deep enough into Washington's spending addiction. The House GOP's offering, which is now being modified in the Senate, set a goal of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. Musk set a benchmark of finding $2 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse to slash with his DOGE initiative, but fell far short, hitting only $160 billion in his four-month stint as a special government employee. Read On The Fox News App Elon Musk Warpath Against Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Rattles House Gop Still, he came with receipts, questioning whether Trump, Thune and Johnson were actually committed to making deep cuts. Below are moments from the campaign trail and recent months compiled by Fox News Digital where the trio affirmed their commitment to putting a dent in the nation's nearly $37 trillion debt. A common theme for Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign was to go after the Biden administration, and his opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, for "throwing billions of dollars out the window." The then-presidential candidate vowed that should he win a second term, his incoming administration would halt wasteful spending. "We will stop wasteful spending and big government special interest giveaways, and finally stand up for the American taxpayer, which hasn't happened since I was president," he said. "We stood up. Our current massive deficits will be reduced to practically nothing. Our country will be powered by growth. Our country, will be powered by growth, will pay off our debt, will have all this income coming in." Gop Senators Express 'Concerns,' 'Skepticism' Over Trump's Spending Bill After Musk Rant Thune has agreed with his colleagues in the House GOP that the tax cut package needs to achieve steep savings, and believes that the Senate GOP could take those cuts a step further. After the bill advanced from the House last month, the top Senate Republican re-upped his vow to slash federal funding. "It does everything that we set out to do. It modernizes our military, secures our border, extends tax relief and makes permanent tax relief that will lead to economic growth and better jobs in this country, and makes America energy dominant, coupled with the biggest spending reduction in American history," he said. "So those are our agenda items, and that's what we campaigned on. That's what we're going to do." Johnson had to strike a balancing act in the House to cobble together enough support behind the legislation, and struck deals and satisfied concerned lawmakers across the spectrum of the House GOP while still setting a goal of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. Rooting out waste, fraud and abuse has been a continued mantra of the speaker and his allies. "I said this is the beginning of a process, and what you're going to see is a continuing theme of us identifying waste, fraud and abuse in government, which is our pledge of common sense, restoring common sense and fiscal sanity," Johnson said. Original article source: FLASHBACK: Musk accused Trump, GOP leaders of not wanting to cut spending — here's where they said they would
