Federal Facility Accountability Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2279.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment to H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations, or REDO, Act of 2013, which also includes my legislation, H.R. 2226, the Federal and State Partnership for Environmental Protection Act, and Mr. Latta's bill, H.R. 2318, the Federal Facility Accountability Act of 2013.

Our goal with all three of these bills is to modernize some of the environmental laws that we oversee and make sure that the States are playing a significant role in implementing them. To do that, we began this Congress with a hearing on the role of the States in protecting the environment. State environmental protection officials shared their experience and expertise with us and helped us better understand the complex partnership between the States and the Federal Government as States implement Federal laws, such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the EPA implements the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA or Superfund law, and the relation to State environmental protection laws.

Today we consider three bills that are a logical outgrowth of that discussion. The Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations, or REDO, Act of 2013 would give EPA flexibility by correcting two arbitrary action deadlines that were written into the Solid Waste Disposal Act and CERCLA many years ago.

RCRA contains a mandate that EPA review and, if necessary, revise all RCRA regulations every 3 years. This deadline is unnecessary and unworkable in the face of the significant number of regulations that currently exist under RCRA.

The bill would allow the Administrator to review and, if necessary, revise regulations as she thinks appropriate. The bill would also lift an action deadline in CERCLA requiring EPA to identify, prior to 1984, classes of facilities for which to develop financial assurance regulations.

More than 30 years passed without action from the EPA to promulgate regulations regarding financial assurance. A lawsuit and court order finally prompted the EPA action just a few years ago.

In the meantime the States and other Federal agencies have long since acted, putting in place strong financial assurance requirements of their own. That is why the bill also provides that if EPA does get around to establishing Federal financial assurance regulations, the States requirements would not be preempted.

The bill also requires the EPA to gather information regarding the financial assurance programs of States and other Federal agencies and report to Congress regarding whether there is a need for additional regulations by the EPA.

Should the EPA determine there is a need for additional requirements, the bill ensures compliance with existing State or Federal requirements will count towards compliance with EPA's requirements.

The Federal Facility Accountability Act would bring the CERCLA waiver of sovereign immunity into conformity with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and for that matter the Clean Air Act, by requiring that all Federal Superfund sites comply with the same State laws and regulations as a private entity. This is not a new concept.

Legislation has been introduced previously by my friends across the aisle to ensure that Federal agencies comply with all Federal and State environmental laws, including CERCLA.

In fact, the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1991 had the same goal: to make Federal facilities subject to all the same substantive and procedural requirements, including enforcement requirements and sanctions that State and local governments and private companies meet.

The Federal Facility Accountability Act applies the same policy to Federal facilities under CERCLA that already applies to Federal facilities under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Some argue that if this bill becomes law it will change Federal agencies' spending by forcing them to comply with State laws and that CERCLA is different because it is retroactive and applies to prior actions of the Federal Government.

The Solid Waste Disposal Act often applies to past conduct. That's why there is a provision for ``corrective measures.'' In fact, the EPA has issued multiple guidance documents that describe how Federal agencies should harmonize RCRA and CERCLA with respect to cleanups of hazardous waste.

Past conduct, future conduct--the fairness principle is the same. The basic question is whether Federal agencies should comply with State environmental protection laws just as private companies and State and local agencies must do.

My bill, the Federal and State Partnership for Environment Protection Act, does exactly what the title implies and would go a long way toward making the States partners with the EPA in cleaning up hazardous waste sites.

CERCLA is implemented by the EPA, but often States are in the best position to understand the sites in their State. This bill would allow States to play a larger role in the CERCLA process in several ways. The bill would allow States to list a site that it believes needs to be on the National Priorities List every 5 years and would provide transparency to the States if they suggest a site for listing.

The bill would also allow States to be consulted before the EPA selects a remedial action.

States are on the front lines and understand at the ground level how to prioritize environmental actions within their States.

They often come up with innovative solutions that better fit the local problem. We heard examples of that in our hearing on the Role of the States in Protecting the Environment.

CERCLA is a key example of a statute passed more than 30 years ago that we can now update and strengthen the Federal-State partnership to get sites cleaned up.

Removing barriers to job creation imposed by Federal Government is a cornerstone in our governing philosophy. Cory Gardner, Bob Latta and I produced bills to ensure that the Federal Government reduces unnecessary red tape, the barriers to job creation, while still keeping our environment healthy. These important bills aim to improve the Federal and State relationship when dealing with hazardous waste.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives.

Washington, DC, January 8, 2014.

Hon. Fred Upton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Upton, I am writing with respect to H.R.

2279, the ``Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of

2013.''

As you know, H.R. 2279 contains provisions within the

Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result

of your having consulted with the Committee and in order to

expedite the House's consideration of H.R. 2279, the

Committee on the Judiciary will not assert a jurisdictional

claim over this bill by seeking a sequential referral.

However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding and

agreement that doing so will in no way diminish or alter the

jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary with respect

to the appointment of conferees or to any future

jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in

the bill or similar legislation.

I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 2279, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration of H.R. 2279.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Chairman, I have to respond, I think, briefly. I appreciate the ranking member's passion in addressing these issues, but we need to clear up what some of the facts actually are.

CBO has scored these bills and has come back and said that there are no significant cost increases associated with these. Furthermore, in regards to meeting with the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, that meeting did occur, and the concerns that they raised were mainly around criminal liabilities for Federal employees, and that was addressed in the final legislation. So I'm not sure why we are still debating those issues.

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. Chairman, I'm proud at this point to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), our chairman.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, just a couple of quick points of clarification.

My friend and colleague Mr. Tonko and I agree on many things, and we have a history of having worked together to hold the EPA to commonsense rules, and I appreciate that, but I need to clarify just a couple of quick things that my colleague mentioned.

From the Environmental Council of the States, I have before me a letter that I would like to enter into the Record stating that the Environmental Council of the States is writing to support many of the concepts included in this legislation, on all three pieces of this legislation.

And the other organization, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, they don't take positions on legislation; so no matter what the piece of legislation would be, if you call them, they are not going to take a position on it one way or another. That does not mean that they do not support this, but they simply don't take positions.

I wanted to make those clarifications for the Record.

I reserve the balance of my time.

ECOS, The Environmental

Council of the States,

Washington, DC, June 18, 2013.

Re ``CERCLA Bills'' H.R.s 2226, 2318, 2279

Hon. Fred Upton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Henry Waxman,

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressmen: The Environmental Council of the States

(ECOS) is writing to support many of the concepts included in

H.R. 2226 The Federal and State Partnership for Environmental

Protection Act of 2013, H.R. 2318 The Federal Facility

Accountability Act of 2013 H.R. 2279, and The Reducing

Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013.

As stated in our testimony at your hearing on May 17, ECOS

supports the expansion of ``consultation with states'' as

described in the bills. ECOS especially acknowledges that the

bills directly address concerns expressed by the States in

our ECOS Resolution on federal facilities operations under

RCRA and CERCLA (attached; see especially the bolded items).

ECOS is a non-partisan, non-profit organization of the

state environmental agencies and their leaders, who are our

members.

We ask that you include this letter in the record on this

matter. If there is anything else that ECOS can do to assist

you in this matter, please do not hesitate to ask.

Regards,

R. Steven Brown,

Executive Director.

Attachment.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I want to go back and revisit just briefly some of the cost implications or the allegations of cost implications of today's legislation that we are considering.

CBO carefully analyzed all three of the bills that we are considering as part of H.R. 2279 today, and here is what they said:

CBO estimates that, in some cases, implementing this

legislation could affect the pace of discretionary spending

if priorities for cleanup activities change. However, CBO

expects that total costs to fulfill Federal responsibilities

under CERCLA would be little changed under this legislation.

That was directly from the CBO score for H.R. 2226.

Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that removing

the current requirement to review certain recommendations

every 3 years would reduce administrative costs. However,

some of those savings in administrative expenses would be

offset by spending on the new requirement to report to the

Congress any financial responsibility requirements. CBO

estimates that, on balance, implementing this legislation

would not have a significant net impact on spending that is

subject to appropriation over the 2014-2018 period. Enacting

H.R. 2279 would not affect direct spending or revenues.

That was directly from the CBO score for H.R. 2279.

CBO estimates that enacting this legislation could increase the pace of discretionary spending to the extent that Federal agencies accelerate spending

related to cleanup activities or pay additional fines and penalties imposed by the States. However, CBO expects that aggregate, long-term costs to fulfill Federal responsibilities under CERCLA would be little changed under the legislation.

In addition, H.R. 2318 could increase direct spending to the extent that fines and penalties were paid from the Treasury's Judgment Fund. However, CBO expects that any incremental spending from that fund would probably be insignificant. CBO estimates that any additional direct spending over the 2014-2023 period would be insignificant.

CBO goes on to say:

Enacting this legislation would not fundamentally change

the Federal Government's responsibility to comply with

CERCLA. According to the latest financial report of the

United States, the Federal Government's current environmental

remediation and waste disposal liabilities exceed $300

billion (under all environmental laws). Under current law,

Federal agencies, in particular the Departments of Defense

and Energy, currently spend billions of dollars each year

conducting cleanup activities under CERCLA, including

reimbursements to State agencies for related services they

provide. Based on information from Federal agencies and

industry representatives, CBO expects that enacting this

legislation could induce Federal agencies to accelerate their

compliance activities at some facilities--possibly changing

the timing of funding requests for certain projects. As a

result, H.R. 2318 might lead to greater compliance costs for

Federal facilities for the years immediately following

enactment, but the total long-term cost of compliance would

not change substantially.

I just wanted to make that point for the record.

Finally, I want to urge my colleagues not to be misled by my colleague's argument that this bill somehow prevents the EPA from enacting financial assurance requirements. It simply does not. More than 30 years passed before EPA complied with the requirements of CERCLA and started the process of developing financial assurance requirements. All this bill does is require the EPA to acknowledge the body of law developed by the States and other Federal agencies in the more than 30 years since the EPA has failed to act.

This legislation does not limit EPA from establishing Federal CERCLA financial responsibility requirements or from setting a minimum level of financial assurance that is required. H.R. 2279 merely ensures that existing State and Federal requirements can be used to meet those requirements where appropriate and ensures that existing State protections that may already exceed a new Federal minimum requirement will not be automatically voided.

The purpose of the provision in the bill requiring the EPA to report to Congress before new CERCLA financial responsibility requirements are enacted is to make sure that there is a legitimate need for new requirements. It does not prevent the EPA from promulgating new requirements if they are necessary.

My colleague argues that the bill is based on a false premise that States are implementing adequate financial assurance requirements. The bill does not prejudge State financial assurance requirements. What the bill does is require the EPA to analyze the existing financial assurance requirements, and it directs the EPA to ``fill the gap'' left by financial assurance regulations developed by the States or other Federal agencies. But make no mistake, if there is a regulatory gap and the EPA believes that gap needs to be filled, the EPA is free to enact regulations.

The purpose of financial assurance under 108(b) of CERCLA was to prevent the creation of new Superfund sites. The bill provides a mechanism for gathering information to decide whether the existing State and Federal financial assurance requirements are adequate to protect the Federal Government from incurring response costs under

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes the provision that would allow States to list a site on the National Priorities List once every 5 years.

States have a great deal of experience and expertise in cleaning up sites contaminated by hazardous wastes, and States are often in a better position to understand the realities of site cleanup in their States and to understand the local or regional issues affecting the cleanup, but there are times when it would be better addressed by the EPA under CERCLA, and there would be a significant delay in the listing process. As a result, the bill also allows a State to designate a site that meets the criteria for listing to the National Priorities List once every 5 years.

CERCLA currently permits States to list a site on the National Priorities List only once. States have taken to calling this their ``silver bullet.'' Using the silver bullet fast-tracks the listing of a site on the NPL and allows States to avoid the often lengthy listing process. Some States have already used their silver bullet, while others hold onto it and wait for a site that it believes would be better addressed by the EPA under CERCLA.

My colleague indicated in a Dear Colleague letter she circulated earlier today that the bill could result in the EPA's placing silver bullet projects at the bottom of the priorities list while still remaining in statutory compliance. While I appreciate my colleague's concern, this statement is both misleading and incorrect. The reality is that the EPA can place a silver bullet site--or any other site for that matter--at the bottom of its priority list at any time. This bill does not change the EPA's ability to prioritize sites for cleanup.

CERCLA is very process heavy, and States are often reluctant to wade into the drawn-out CERCLA process. They would rather clean up the sites themselves and avoid the stigma associated with having a Superfund site in their States. However, there are times when the only way to get a site cleaned up is to get it on the Superfund list. It is not an easy conclusion for States to come to, and States are not clamoring to list on the National Priorities List. So any argument that this bill would somehow result in an onslaught of new listings by the States would simply not play out.

One of the arguments against allowing States to list a site on the NPL is that it will somehow change the EPA's prioritization of how to spend its cleanup dollars. Just because a site is listed on the NPL does not mean that it will automatically receive funding or will somehow jump to the front of the line to receive cleanup dollars. Nothing in this bill changes the fact that the EPA sets the priority for sites to be cleaned up, and the EPA decides how to spend its cleanup dollars.

Furthermore, if a site is listed and is being cleaned up using Federal dollars, States are financially invested in making sure the cleanup is done right. States must contribute 10 percent of the overall remedial cost and all of the long-term operation and maintenance costs. With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, ironically, the EPA often pushes States to identify more sites that the EPA can put on the list so that the EPA can argue for more cleanup funding. The EPA incentivizes States to identify sites that meet the listing criteria by giving the States that identify sites more funds to do initial site assessments.

So the long and short of it is that the EPA wants more sites on the NPL, and the EPA wants the States to assist with identifying NPL sites, but the EPA does not want to relinquish control over the actual selection of the appropriate sites. We are trying to help fix that. Again, I urge a ``no'' vote from my colleagues on the Sinema amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure my colleague's amendment is well-intentioned, and in fact, I agree with him. I do not want to see an increase in litigation or a slowdown in the cleanup process or a decrease in funds available to clean up Superfund sites, but this amendment is not necessary because H.R. 2279 will not do any of those things.

CERCLA has been implemented for over 30 years, and the EPA has developed many practices and policies during that time. Some of the policies work and are consistently implemented, but many of the policies or practices are ineffective or are not consistently applied across the EPA regions. The EPA has done a good job of getting contaminated sites cleaned up under CERCLA, but that doesn't mean that we can't do better.

States are often in a better position to understand the local and regional issues affecting the cleanup, and States are well positioned to assist the EPA with all aspects of a response action. By ensuring that the States have a meaningful role in the Federal-State partnership under CERCLA and by making sure that Federal entities are on a level playing field with private entities engaged in CERCLA cleanups, we can do better and get more sites cleaned up faster.

My colleague's amendment implies that the purpose of this bill is to thwart cleanup efforts. On the contrary, the purpose of this legislation is to make sure sites get cleaned up in a

timely fashion by enhancing the existing role of the States, which are in the best position to assess the conditions at the site. The bill adjusts a top-down culture of CERCLA cleanups, but the bill does not alter the EPA's lead role in implementing CERCLA. States are already involved in the CERCLA process. Ensuring that States have a meaningful and substantial role will not slow down the cleanup process.

My colleague's amendment also implies that H.R. 2279 will reduce the number of funds available for cleanup. This is simply not the case. Congress decides on the amount of money to be appropriated to the EPA or to other Federal agencies for cleanups, and that is not changed by this legislation. It is up to the Federal agencies to prioritize how they spend the appropriated cleanup funds, and nothing in this bill changes the way money appropriated for cleanups is spent.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to say how much I respect my colleague, Mr. Tonko. We continue to work together, have worked together, and have had some successes in holding the EPA accountable to the law. I appreciate working with him.

But this amendment, although well-intentioned, is drafted in such a way that makes it impossibly vague. It is indeterminable whether a provision of the bill would increase the potential for litigation, and I continue to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Tonko amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, our goal with this legislation is clear and straightforward. We want to modernize outdated environmental laws. The part of the bill that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) wrote makes modest, but important, improvements in environmental law. It allows the EPA to review and revise its solid waste disposal regulations as necessary.

In a hearing that we had, we asked a mayor from New Jersey, Would you rather clean up the trash or revise regulations? The mayor made it clear he would rather focus on getting the real work done instead of getting bogged down in governmental red tape.

The part of the bill written by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) says that Federal facilities should behave like anyone else in the State and meet the same natural resource protection requirements. Now, go figure: requiring the Federal Government to live under the same laws that the American people, the States and private-sector businesses have to live under. This is not a new concept. It is already the case under the Clean Air Act and RCRA. Let's just narrow the gap for the Superfund.

Finally, the portion that I wrote ensures that States have a place at the discussion table throughout the process that the EPA set for developing remediation plans.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit and a ``yes'' on final passage. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the former chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and a staunch defender in public policy and outspoken word for the environment.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee and also the longest-serving Member of the House, my good friend from the State of Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who was at the table in 1980 to oversee the Superfund and knows more about the Superfund than perhaps anyone in the House.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I would like to make a few comments.

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.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has fought for many environmental causes through the committee on behalf of his home State of New Jersey and, for that matter, for this Nation.

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.

Next I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a staunch defender of the environment and a good friend.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) who has organized the Environmental Justice Advocates of his home State of Minnesota, and is also the chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House.

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 2279 is a deeply flawed bill that will increase costs, increase litigation, slow down the pace of cleanups, and, indeed, put the public at risk. It will do nothing to make cleanups at contaminated sites more efficient or more effective.

The proponent's intended goals for this legislation are not reflected in the bill's language. We can, and we should, do much better for people living in communities that are dealing with toxic legacies from past failures to deal with hazardous substances properly.

If we want to prevent new Superfund sites from being created and to clean up contaminated sites in their communities and convert them from liabilities to productive assets, we must reject H.R. 2279. I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

With that, again, I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my colleague, my friend from Pennsylvania, for calling attention to this concern that you raised.

In our open, deliberative process which we had in the markup, this was added as an amendment to the bill by my friends on the other side. This was prior to the President's rollout of his working group, prior to the President's stated concern about the sensitive nature of this information; and so it is one of the few times I would agree with the President that this information is very, very sensitive. So it might have been inappropriate at that time to accept this portion of the bill.

In our view, protecting this information, especially keeping it away from terrorists, is of utmost concern; and I want to assure you that this will be our guiding principle as we consider whether to include section 106 or any version of it in the final draft of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, well, it is great to be here on the floor with my friends as we talk about moving pieces of legislation. It is unfortunate that we are no longer a debating society; we are just a statement society, whether we are going back to what is true and right in language of the bill or what is not.

Let me talk to folks about how we got to this position.

Upon becoming subcommittee chairman in the last Congress, I talked to members of my committee and staff and I said, There is no perfect piece of legislation. There is no perfect piece of law. What are some things that we can fix to make this process go better?

And it wasn't just our ideas; we went to the States. The States have a huge responsibility. And I think if people watched the body of information of what is coming out of our committee, we have given a lot of deference to the States because they are the ones who live closest to these locations. So we bring in the Council of the States, the Environmental Council of the States and all the stakeholders and we say, What is it about the Federal law that drives you crazy and if we fixed it would make your life better? Hence, these three pieces of legislation that have been rolled into one bill to make it to the floor.

The Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act, it allows the EPA to review regulations on solid waste disposal only when necessary. You know what the law says; regardless if the law works or not, you have to review it every 3 years. And you know what happens when that law is in there; regardless if it works, regardless if there are no complaints, you have to review it. So that is ripe for litigation. You don't do it within the time line, whether you need to or not, let's sue and settle. Let's do something.

So all we are saying is, if the law works, if the regulations are good, if there are no complaints, don't have an automatic time line of having to review it in 3 years. The States said, Yes, we would like that because we are spending more time.

Part of the problem with the Superfund is huge amounts of money go to

litigation. Surprise, surprise. We want to get money away from litigation to remediation. That is all we are trying to do.

The bill also requires EPA, prior to developing new financial responsibility requirements--and that is the key. What is a financial responsibility requirement? What do you have to have available if you are going to do this site and in case something goes wrong and you need cleanup? What are the financial requirements? What is the bonding you need? All we are saying is don't change the rules. And if you are going to change the rules for financial bonding while the process and the site is being operated, wouldn't it be good to talk to the States and let people know that the Federal Government is going to change the rules in the operation of a new site? The States said, Good idea. You ought to look at that.

One other part of the bill is the Federal and State Partnership for Environmental Protection Act of 2013, which requires the EPA to consult with States when undergoing a removal action. So usually what happens at a Superfund site, the Federal Government gets involved. They are going to help do the majority of the cleanup. But guess who has the long-term observation and administration costs of the site? The States do. All we are saying is, if we are going to start to remediate in a State, let's have the State sit down and work with the EPA so the State knows its long-term costs. Pretty simple.

And the last one, which I always find pretty amazing that my friends on the other side are arguing about, protecting the Federal Government to pollute. All we are saying is, when the Federal Government has polluted a site, the Federal Government ought to clean it up. We make everyone else do it. We hold everyone else responsible. But no, if the Federal Government has polluted, we give them immunity. Sovereign immunity. They don't have to do anything. So this law says that it is about time the Federal Government comply with the same laws that States do and other individuals do.

This is a position my colleagues have had for many, many years. And of all the portions of this bill that I thought that they would be all for is moving this position that the Federal Government should comply with the same laws as everyone else does. And for my colleagues on the other side to protect governmental polluters I just find is unbelievable.

So the process was good. We had hearings. We had markups. We had amendments agreed to. I am proud of my colleagues in bringing these bills to the floor. I am glad of the participation by the States, and I look forward to the moving of the bill.

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

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will proceed immediately to final passage, as amended.

My amendment simply states that the bill won't take effect if it results in fewer cleaned-up sites, if it shifts responsibility from polluters to the American taxpayers, and if there is greater exposure to carcinogens for schools, hospitals, and nursing homes within 5 miles of a contaminated site.

Mr. Speaker, for too long, we have heard as an article of faith that we have to choose between a prosperous economy and a clean environment, the idea that we can't have both. That is a false choice.

People in San Diego and people around the country know that we deserve nothing less than both. We need to provide both economic opportunity and clean air and water for our future generations.

In my first career, for 15 years, I practiced environmental law in the public and private sectors. Many of my clients were businesses or local governments that struggled to understand and follow what they felt were overly complex and time-consuming regulatory requirements, and from this experience, I have no doubt that overly burdensome red tape hurts our economy.

So I hope that in any case where we can streamline and simplify environmental regulations, while still protecting and enhancing the health of our rivers, lakes, oceans, and air, that everyone in this Congress would be onboard.

I hope that we all agree that real substantive protections are important to ensuring that our drinking water, ocean water, and the land we live and farm on are safe for our children, the elderly, and our families. These resources are economic assets that we have inherited, that we have a responsibility to preserve, and that we must be active stewards in protecting.

At the heart of the Superfund program is the commonsense idea that those who caused pollution would pay to clean it up. The underlying bill turns away from this basic principle and, instead, puts hardworking taxpayers who didn't cause the pollution on the hook for the expensive cleanups. That is not right, and it is not a good incentive for preventing future contamination.

The bill creates an unfunded mandate by allowing States to move polluted sites off of their regulatory plates to the Federal Superfund list, shifting responsibility from corporations and States to the Federal taxpayer, and just as the Congress has slashed the Superfund budget 40 percent over the last 5 years. If we add more sites to the already burdened Federal list, we will certainly delay cleanups at the expense of human health and the environment.

Second, the bill, for the first time ever, would subject our Federal employees to unfair penalties and perhaps even imprisonment if, in the good faith execution of their duties, they find that they can't comply with a State order because it directly conflicts with Federal law. Putting Federal workers who are tasked with cleaning up these heavily polluted sites in this position is beyond bad management, it is cruelly unfair, and it effectively scares employees from doing the very job we pay them, as taxpayers, to do.

Finally, the Department of Defense has serious concerns with the bill, as it would make it difficult to clean up many of the nearly 10,000 Superfund sites on military bases. According to the military, the bill would waste money on unnecessary litigation instead of actual site cleanup.

Just north of my district in San Diego, a part of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton is a Superfund site. Nine areas of soil and groundwater have been contaminated by pesticides, metals, herbicides, and more. These waters sources flow into the neighboring Pacific Ocean, and every day that we delay the cleanup and restoration of this site, our servicemembers, civilians working on the site, and numerous endangered species in the region face adverse risks. We cannot let this continue.

In these lean fiscal times, we must make the most of limited Federal resources and taxpayer dollars. This legislation would bring with it unnecessary litigation, more spending that doesn't go to fixing the problems, exactly the kind of waste we are trying to eliminate from the Federal budget.

My motion to recommit ensures that we are both careful stewards of the taxpayer dime and the environment. We must support laws that protect human health and the environment and continue to enforce the idea that polluters--not hardworking taxpayers--pay for what they pollute.

I call on my colleagues not to fall for the false choice between growing the economy and protecting the environment. We can and we must do both. Vote ``yes'' on this motion, and stand with me to protect the taxpayer, protect children's health, and ensure that those who cause pollution pay to clean it up.

Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko) for yielding and for his kind words.

Today the House is considering legislation to reduce the number of cleanups of dangerous contaminated sites that can occur each year. It is reducing the number of cleanups. At the same time, it is raising the cost to the taxpayers and letting polluters escape responsibility.

This bill is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the House of Representatives. It is a partisan bill, developed through an insufficient committee process that erodes landmark public health protections for the benefit of big polluters.

When I first learned that the committee was considering this legislation to address the cleanup of contaminated sites on Federal land, I was hopeful that this was an issue that could be pursued on a bipartisan basis. We should always be looking for ways to improve our laws, to be more careful and effective in the use of taxpayer dollars, and to better protect public health and the environment. But the Energy and Commerce Committee leadership refused to work with the stakeholders to develop a workable and credible proposal.

The Department of Justice and Department of Defense both offered to come help us craft new and effective policies, but the chairman of the subcommittee refused to even meet with them.

Even worse, after the hearing on the bill, where a bill was out there, we had a hearing on it, the House Republicans added provisions that would let private companies avoid accountability for the pollution they cause. That means we are voting on legislation today to create new hurdles for holding polluters accountable, and we have no legislative record to explain it.

The outcome of enacting this bill should be obvious. If polluters don't pay to clean up their pollution, then it just becomes one more burden on the taxpayer. And none of us should want that.

This is the continuation of a disturbing trend. Over the last 3 years under Republican control, the House has voted over 400 times to weaken environmental laws. Last year, the House voted 51 times to benefit the oil and gas industry. From gutting laws that fight climate change to repealing rules that cut toxic air pollution, the House Republican leadership appears to have no qualms about targeting any public health and environmental protection.

The House Republicans seem to have forgotten we represent all of the American people. We represent the parents who want to know that their children are not being exposed to cancer-causing pollution. We represent taxpayers who don't want to spend millions to clean up a polluted industrial site simply because a big corporation decided to walk away. And, yes, we even represent the Federal employees who shouldn't have to face the threat of State sanctions just for doing their job and following the law as they would under this bill.

The administration strongly opposes this bill because it could delay cleanup of contaminated sites with the most urgent human health and safety risks. All of the Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee voted against these bills that have been combined and are being presented to us today. We all oppose it because it will increase litigation and let polluters off the hook. This bill would be vetoed if it ever made its way to the President's desk. Most likely it will never see the light of day in the other House.

This bill might play well with some special interest groups, but it should never become law; and I urge all Members to oppose this legislation.

I thank you for yielding so I can correct the record.

Bipartisan staff on our committee met with the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense to hear a long list of objections they had to the bill that was before the markup in committee. When we went into the markup in committee, I personally asked in the public session if Chairman Shimkus, the chairman of the subcommittee, would meet personally with the Department of Justice and Department of Defense because they had great concerns about the bill. He said at that markup that he would.

We checked with the Department of Defense, we checked with the Department of Justice, and there has been no such meeting. There has been some change, but they have not really addressed all the issues that I think Members should have been taking into consideration. There was really not an attempt, if the gentleman would permit, to work this out on a bipartisan basis, to hear what other people had to say about it. This bill was driven through and was being written whether we had a hearing, written after the hearings where they had a markup, written after the markup without getting all the facts; and it is a flawed bill as a result of it.

Thank you for yielding to me.