[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 102 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. BILL BARRETT

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 16, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2158) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
     agencies, commissions, corporations, and offices for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to share with my 
colleagues a small town's recent experience with the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA] which serves up yet another reason why the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
[CERCLA], commonly called Superfund, must be reformed and reformed 
soon.
  Recently, EPA advised a community in the south-central part of my 
congressional district, Hastings, NE, that it intends to present the 
city and three or four potentially responsible parties [PRP's] with a 
bill for the costs EPA incurred at the Hastings Groundwater 
Contamination Site. EPA's Region 7 Administrator has confirmed that in 
the next 2 to 3 months EPA intends to demand payment for costs incurred 
between 1983 and 1994. EPA incurred these costs in its investigation, 
analysis, and study of contamination in Hastings. The bill apparently 
even will include EPA's indirect expenses, such as employee benefits, 
office costs, expenses, travel, and lodging--Believe it or not!
  As you can imagine, this situation greatly alarms Hastings and me, 
since past costs for the site amount to more than $20 million. EPA 
estimates the city would be responsible for $1 to $1.5 million, and the 
PRP's would be responsible for the balance. Unfortunately, EPA is not 
expected to allocate responsibility for these past costs among the 
various PRP's. Thus, the PRP's and the city will need to voluntarily 
allocate or litigate. As you know, litigation has been much more common 
under Superfund. Given the large amounts of money at stake, this could 
become a fight for survival.
  You're probably thinking, so what's the big deal? I'll tell you--
Hastings is a small town with a population of 23,000! The city collects 
approximately $5 million in sales and property taxes annually. The city 
can't afford a $1 to $1.5 million bill. It can't raise taxes because 
the Nebraska legislature has placed a zero-spending lid on all Nebraska 
cities in an effort to curb taxes, and it can't afford to engage in 
costly litigation with the other PRP's. The city can ill-afford to lose 
its business base because it was forced to sue to reduce its liability.
  The PRP's can't afford to pay the balance of the bill. It could 
bankrupt them. I don't know exactly what dollar amount would force the 
PRP's out of business, but any large bill--even if it does not amount 
to $20 million--could severely hamper future business expansion and new 
job creation in the community.
  This is a perfect example of why Superfund, and especially 
retroactive liability, needs to be reformed. Many communities are 
familiar with similar situations--a large portion of the pollution at 
Hastings occurred early in the century, and any pollution that did 
occur happened after hazardous waste laws were enacted. The disposal of 
the responsible materials was done according to the law of the day. 
Since then, companies have been bought and sold, the city's management 
has come and gone, and as a result, there are no real polluters now in 
Hastings--despite EPA's efforts to identify them.
  This should be a warning to all of us. This is not an isolated case. 
This could happen in any district.
  But what makes me so frustrated, Mr. Chairman, is that it's our 
fault. Congress passed Superfund. Congress has not been able to reform 
it, even though many of my colleagues have been working with each other 
and the administration to reform it for many years. It's a complex 
issue, but it shouldn't take this long or be this hard to do.
  Often I question EPA's judgment, especially in Hastings' situation, 
and know the agency has been overzealous or irrational with its 
regulations and enforcement of Superfund. However, I realize EPA has a 
bad law to enforce. But why should Congress keep giving EPA funds to 
implement a bad law? And what incentive does EPA have to work with 
Congress to reauthorize Superfund if we keep it so well funded? 
Congress must stand up to the pressure to simply throw money at a 
problem without understanding what we are dealing with. For example, 
why haven't we asked about the true nature of risk from hazardous waste 
sites, and why haven't we had a national dialogue on how to prioritize 
spending on Superfund sites?
  It's time to ask these questions and to reform Superfund. The 
Bipartisan Budget Agreement requires that Congress enact comprehensive 
reform before there is any increase in funding. I urge my colleagues to 
resist efforts to increase funding for this program and to support 
Superfund reform.

                          ____________________