Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

At a time when too many of our citizens are still out of work, our Nation's infrastructure is in need of repair, the Tax Code needs revision, and when the safety net that provides basic necessities for our citizens has a tragic number of holes to close, we are spending our time on yet another bill that is headed straight for the legislative dust bin.

It was the high-profile contamination at Love Canal in my home State of New York back in 1978 that motivated Congress to address the serious public health threat that existed at many sites across this country. Toxic contamination of air, of water, and of land from the improper handling of disposal of hazardous materials.

Many of us represent districts that have formerly contaminated sites or sites that still remain to be cleaned up.

Superfund is not a perfect law, but it has, in combination with other environmental laws, returned many abandoned, contaminated sites to productive use.

When contaminated, blighted land is transformed, the entire community benefits. A long-abandoned former industrial site along the riverfront in my district was restored to a popular park. The residents of Amsterdam now enjoy a beautiful waterfront area.

H.R. 2279 does nothing to improve public health or create jobs or protect the environment or avoid needless public expenses. In fact, it does the opposite.

Title I of this bill further delays actions that should have been taken years ago. Congress included broad authorities for the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that businesses that handle hazardous substances were financially able to deal with contamination that might result from their activities. This provision remains essential to protecting taxpayer interests, and it ensures these businesses are acting responsibly.

EPA's goals within the Superfund program should not stop at cleaning up the legacy sites that we have. It should also prevent new sites from being contaminated. It should prevent more people from being exposed to toxic substances, and it should prevent the property damage, loss of revenue, and stigma that communities experience when they are marred by these sites.

H.R. 2279 blocks the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing financial responsibility standards that their inspector general's office and the Government Accountability Office have advised are prudent actions that will avoid unnecessary public expenditures to clean up contaminated sites.

The GAO's last report on this topic indicated that in the 10-year period they examined, Federal agencies spent $2.6 billion to reclaim abandoned hard-rock mine sites on Federal, State, private, and tribal lands.

So how does H.R. 2279 address this potential $100 million per year liability? By blocking EPA from taking recommended steps to avoid these potential cleanup costs. We cannot afford to continue this destructive policy.

Under the guise of "fiscal responsibility,'' the majority voted to expand the list of requirements for applicants to the food stamp program to include drug testing and work requirements in addition to the detailed examination of an applicant's financial assets already required--all this to avoid providing a subsidy of about $1.50 per meal.

Apparently, it is too much to ask that a business, which could expose communities to toxic contamination, leave taxpayers with cleanup costs in the tens of millions of dollars, and result in lost local revenue and loss of property values, provide the government with assurance that it can afford to properly manage or clean up contamination that it created. The inconsistency in these policy choices is, indeed, incredible.

Blocking EPA from instituting basic requirements to protect public health, community vitality, local economic interests, and taxpayer interests provides a massive subsidy to a polluter at great public expense.

Titles II and III of this bill are somewhat of a mystery. I have no idea what problems with the Superfund program they propose to fix, but we have heard from the administration about serious problems this bill would, indeed, create.

The proponents of this legislation claim that title II will provide States more funding, give States a greater role in cleanups, and improve cooperation between States and the Federal Government on site cleanups, but States already have a significant role. Under current law, States can assert greater control over cleanups through a variety of mechanisms if they wish to do so.

The provisions altering the relationship between Federal and State government have a number of serious problems. For example, title III creates situations in which Federal employees could find themselves in a legal mess if caught between conflicting State and Federal direction of a cleanup site. This is an issue that was raised when this bill was considered by the committee. It was not resolved in committee, and it was not resolved before coming here to the House floor.

This is not the first bill this House has considered that demonstrated a disregard for Federal workers. This House has repeatedly turned to Federal workers to shoulder an unfair amount of the burden of deficit reduction.

Our erratic appropriation process has made their jobs more difficult, even as we have reduced their benefits and frozen their salaries.

We shut down the government, creating tremendous uncertainty for their families and barring people from their workplace. Now we are poised to pass a bill that might result in Federal workers being put in jail for doing their job.

Mr. Chair, I have touched on a few of the problems with this legislation. This is a poorly crafted bill that offers nothing for the public. It will not speed cleanups. It will not save money. It will not improve public health. This is bad policy and poorly crafted legislation. With that, I urge my colleagues to reject it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I keep hearing from the bill's supporters that the States need and want this legislation. I am a little confused by those statements. My staff called the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, and they do not support the legislation. We also called the Environmental Council of the States, which represents the State environmental commissioners, and they have not endorsed the instant legislation before the House. So I am somewhat confused by the statements being made here.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, while the Environmental Council of the States may have supported some concepts of the bill, they have not moved to endorse the bill. I will stand by my statement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chair, my amendment adds a savings clause to H.R. 2279 to avoid unintended consequences and detrimental impacts on current and future site cleanup efforts.

We certainly know that the actual provisions of the bill trump the intended goals of the legislation. If, as the supporters of this bill claim, it will not increase litigation, it will not increase costs or delay ongoing or future site cleanups, my amendment would have no effect. However, if the administration's analysis is correct--and I believe it is--my amendment will keep current site cleanups on track and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently--spent on cleaning up contaminated sites and not spent in courtrooms.

If the committee had taken additional time to do the necessary oversight that would enable us to identify the best options for improving the Superfund program, my amendment would not be necessary, but the many problems with this bill that Democratic members of the committee have raised and that are echoed in the administration's analysis make my amendment truly necessary.

As the administration's statement of policy points out, H.R. 2279 severely reduces the Federal Government's role in the cleanup of Federal sites. The Federal Government's ability to set a "worst first'' prioritization agenda for site cleanups is eliminated. The Federal Government pays the vast majority of the costs for site cleanups on Federal lands and sites on the National Priorities List. The Federal Government certainly should consult with the State on sites within its borders, but especially in cases where Federal land, Federal tax dollars, Federal employees, and Federal operations are concerned, the Federal Government should have the last word.

My amendment provides a prudent insurance policy to ensure that we do not use limited Superfund resources to litigate rather than to mitigate. My amendment ensures that we move forward. It ensures that we clean up these sites and convert them from revenue liabilities to revenue enhancements. It ensures that we reduce public health risks from contamination. With that, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, our colleague and my friend from Ohio indicates that this bill will not increase litigation or increase costs or delay ongoing or future site cleanups, and so my amendment would not affect the measure before the House. So it really is a statement in support of the amendment. There is no just reason offered to not support the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source