Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, our country's worst polluters don't deserve a get out of jail free card. I think that's an unintended consequence of the current language of the bill, absent this amendment. And I encourage my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to adopt this amendment.
Regardless of one's position on the underlying bill, one thing I hope we can all agree on is that the most egregious polluters--these are polluters that Republican and Democratic State administrations, Republican and Democratic experts agree are the most egregious polluters, those who simply disregard the law knowingly, those who repeatedly ignore State regulation, are bad actors and they should not be among those who benefit from this bill. The States deserve to have the EPA back them up and help them keep tabs on these polluters who continually violate State rules.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of these polluters have escaped not only punishment but simply increased scrutiny. Polluters that continually violate the law are classified as ``significant noncompliance.'' That's the term that's used. This classification simply puts these polluters under a greater microscope by the EPA. It doesn't change authorities. It doesn't engender some new regulatory scheme. It simply ensures that the EPA is keeping a close eye on them and ensuring that State programs are being followed.
Again, I believe it's a piece of this that's outside of this larger State versus Federal debate. It's one that is consistent with supporting States' regulation of the most egregious infractors.
States simply don't have the resources to keep our waters safe on their own. According to a 2009 New York Times investigation, State officials attribute rising pollution rates to increased workloads and dwindling resources. In 46 States, local regulators already have primary responsibility for crucial aspects of the Clean Water Act. The job needed to protect our health is simply too big for State regulators alone.
One notable example of significant noncompliance is from the Bush administration between 2001 and 2006. The Bush administration found that Massey Energy, the same company responsible for the Big Branch Mine Disaster, had accrued over 2,000 significant violations, and the State did not have the resources to hold them accountable. Under significant noncompliance, the Bush administration was able to more closely watch Massey and ensure they followed State rules.
Again, in its current form, this bill offers these most extreme polluters a get out of jail free card, unraveling the EPA's long history of backing up State authority and successfully and reasonably keeping these major polluters in check. My amendment very simply states that the EPA can keep a closer eye--that's all, a closer eye--on the most extreme violators of the law, polluters who are habitually out of compliance or significant noncompliance.
Without my amendment, this bill would mean that our Nation's worst offenders would be free from EPA scrutiny, with sole authority being new, less organized, and naive State programs ripe for loopholes and some of which simply don't have the scale to adequately regulate what's at stake.
Mr. Chair, if a student is disruptive in class, it's only common sense they go to the principal's office. That doesn't mean the teacher doesn't have autonomy in the class or the troubled student doesn't respect the teacher. They need to know there are greater consequences for bad behavior.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. The gentleman from Colorado seems to suggest that States would continue to allow polluters to pollute waters of their States under H.R. 2018 unless this amendment is adopted. Nothing could be further from the truth. If H.R. 2018 degraded water quality, none of us would support this legislation.
I also question the implementation of the amendment. If you had a permit holder who is in significant noncompliance, does that negate water quality provisions for the water body the permit holder may be polluting? Of course not. Nothing in H.R. 2018 allows a permit holder to violate the terms of a permit.
I urge all Members to oppose the Polis amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for offering this, I think, very well thought-out and well-conceived amendment.
I support the amendment offered by the gentleman because it suggests that the most appropriate place for retaining Federal oversight is against polluters who have a track record on the most serious violations of the Clean Water Act, those found to be in significant noncompliance; and, thus, the retention of a Federal oversight role I think is very wise.
And let me just amplify that. In September of 2009, The New York Times ran a front-page story highlighting that, from 2004 to 2008, 506,000 violations of the Clean Water Act were reported for both major and minor facilities; and during that time, the States only took 11,000 enforcement actions, or what is basically a 2 percent enforcement rate. We need to have the Federal Government retain its oversight role. This amendment would do that.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. GIBBS. I just want to reemphasize that if there is a permit holder in violation, the States have an obligation and a responsibility to step in and take action and enforcement. If they probably didn't, I'm sure that there's some organization that would file a lawsuit against that EPA.
So I don't think this amendment does anything to help the bill. I think the bill takes care of it, and the people who would be in violation would be prosecuted under the law.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I don't agree with what the gentleman from Ohio said. I don't believe that this should be yet another unfunded mandate on the States.
While the number of unregulated facilities has more than doubled in the last decade, many State enforcement budgets have been flat when adjusted for inflation. In New York, for example, the number of regulated polluters has almost doubled in the last decade, but the number of inspections have remained the same.
Again, my amendment gives the State the ability to send habitual bad actors to the EPA, not for the worst punishment, not for some change in authority, not for some overreach, but simply for closer scrutiny. My amendment does not affect punishment. It simply allows the EPA to keep a close eye on the frequent violator in support of the State, as is the practice with significant noncompliance.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment to ensure that the worst violators are properly inspected in support of State regulation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source