[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H96-H112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          REDUCING EXCESSIVE DEADLINE OBLIGATIONS ACT OF 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 455 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2279.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1409


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2279) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act relating to review of 
regulations under such Act and to amend the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 relating to financial 
responsibility for classes of facilities, with Mr. Yoder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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

[[Page H97]]

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.

                              {time}  1415

  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.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives.

                                  Washington, DC, January 8, 2014.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on Judiciary,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte, Thank you for your letter 
     regarding H.R. 2279, the ``Reducing Excessive Deadline 
     Obligations Act of 2013.'' As you noted, there are provisions 
     of the bill that fall within the Committee on the Judiciary's 
     Rule X jurisdiction.
       I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 2279, 
     and I agree that your decision is not a waiver of any of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction over the subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that the 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward. In addition, I 
     understand the Committee reserves the right to seek the 
     appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any 
     House-Senate conference involving this or similar 
     legislation, for which you will have my support.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response in 
     the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 2279 on 
     the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. TONKO. 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

[[Page H98]]

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. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to 
my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2279 and specifically a 
section of the bill I sponsored referred to as the Federal Facility 
Accountability Act. This commonsense legislation updates CERCLA to 
ensure that Federal facilities are held to the same level of 
accountability as private facilities when it comes to cleaning up the 
release of hazardous substances. This legislation is supported by a 
number of State entities that have had numerous problems with Federal 
facilities skirting their CERCLA cleanup responsibilities.
  As the Department of Environmental Conservation Contaminated Sites 
program in Alaska pointed out during one of our subcommittee hearings, 
a recurring problem is when Federal entities use sovereign immunity as 
a bar to limit or even refute State involvement and oversight of agency 
cleanups. In these instances, the Federal agency is acting as the 
responsible party and the regulator in which they get to determine 
which laws to apply, how safe the remedy needs to be, and they also pay 
the bill. Further, there is inconsistency in how some Federal agencies 
apply their CERCLA authority.
  The Federal Facilities Accountability Act addresses these concerns 
and existing ambiguities by ensuring current and formerly owned Federal 
facilities will have to comply with the same State requirements as a 
private entity doing cleanup under CERCLA and specifically identifies 
the types of State procedural and substantive requirements that are 
applicable to the Federal Government.
  Some of the most pressing environmental problems exist at current and 
former Federal facilities, and States have come a long way in 
developing strong regulatory programs to protect public health, safety, 
and the environment. It makes sense for Federal agencies to comply with 
these State environmental laws and to clean up contamination at Federal 
facilities to the same standards as everyone else.
  With strong independent State enforcement authority, the 
environmental performance of Federal agencies will undoubtedly improve.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2279.
  Mr. TONKO. 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. WAXMAN. 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.

[[Page H99]]

  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.

                              {time}  1430

  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.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
leadership in managing this legislation today. I also thank the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus of Illinois, for his fine 
work on this legislation.
  I am rising today in support of H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive 
Deadline Obligations Act, a package of bills, as we have discussed, 
which includes the Federal Facility Accountability Act by Mr. Latta 
from Ohio and the Federal and State Partnership for Environmental 
Protection Act by Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
  This legislation represents steps to roll back unnecessary and 
overburdensome regulations that are duplicative and unnecessary. The 
bills are aimed to protect the State-Federal partnership when it comes 
to cleaning up hazardous waste sites as quickly and as efficiently as 
possible. Solid waste must be disposed of in a responsible, efficient, 
and environmentally friendly manner; but there is no need for overly 
burdensome regulations that put a strain on businesses.
  While our economy continues to sputter along, commonsense revisions 
of rules and regulations are a vital and critical component of helping 
our State and local economies grow.
  My bill, the REDO Act, does two things. It allows the EPA the 
authority to revise and review the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, 
or RCRA, regulations as appropriate instead of every 3 years as 
required under current law. Even the EPA in written testimony to the 
Energy and Commerce Committee said that this regulation--the regulation 
that we are changing--can pose a significant resource burden on the 
EPA, given the complexity and volume of EPA's RCRA regulations.
  Again, the EPA has problems with the rule. We are simply trying to 
change the rule to give them the power to meet the rule, and that is 
why it is all the more surprising that the President would issue a veto 
threat over a regulation that his own agency has written testimony 
saying they can't comply with it and have problems with it.
  This bill also provides that when the EPA promulgates a financial 
responsibility requirement, existing State or Federal requirements are 
not preempted and EPA's requirement will fill whatever gap may be left 
by the requirements set forth by States and other Federal agencies. If 
EPA does revise requirements, they must submit a report to Congress 
explaining their justification for doing so.
  It is a commonsense bill, commonsense jobs legislation; and I urge 
this Chamber's support.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. 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.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud at this point to yield 3 
minutes to my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
  Section 106 of this bill requires that the owners and operators of 
facilities holding certain quantities of materials that are included on 
the Department of Homeland Security's Chemicals of Interest list report 
those materials to

[[Page H100]]

their State emergency response commissions. And while it is absolutely 
imperative that State and local authorities are properly informed about 
potential hazards in their communities, we have to be sure to 
communicate this information in the most secure, responsible, and 
effective way.
  As chairman of the Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on 
Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies, 
this provision concerns me for two particular reasons. First, the 
President has already specifically asked several Federal agencies--this 
is the Department of Homeland Security; the Environmental Protection 
Agency; and ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms--to assess the 
feasibility of sharing this kind of information with the emergency 
response commissions while they are actually engaged in this activity.
  Section 106 effectively mandates that they share this information 
immediately--before the President has had a chance to make his 
determination. And with sensitive information about the amount, variety 
and location of potentially dangerous materials at issue, this 
directive raises serious security concerns.
  Second, the DHS Chemicals of Interest list is specific to the 
Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards program. CFATS has in 
place a required practice of sharing information in a way that ensures 
facility security. I have serious reservations about whether this 
sensitive information could become compromised or subject to broad 
dissemination if section 106 were to become law. Chemical security is 
the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security, which is 
specifically equipped to protect it.
  Because these concerns have yet to be addressed, I request that the 
committee revisit section 106 during conference with the Senate.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. 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. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. TONKO. 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. DINGELL. I thank my dear friend from New York. I commend him for 
his outstanding service, and I appreciate his yielding this time to me.
  Well, we have a bad bill on the floor. Frankly, I am embarrassed; and 
if I was one of the Republican managers of this bill, I would have a 
red face. Quite honestly, it does nothing except expose Federal 
employees to liability for actually enforcing the law.
  No oversight was conducted to bring about the consideration of this 
legislation. No opportunity was made for the agencies to come forward 
and fully set out their concerns about how this bill is a bad piece of 
legislation.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I handled 
the Superfund amendments in the reauthorization acts earlier. In that 
effort, it was a fully bipartisan undertaking, and we worked very 
closely with the Reagan administration, which was present and involved 
in all the conference meetings. The Senate at that time was under 
Republican control. President Reagan signed the act on October 17, 
1986, after overwhelming votes of 386-27 in the House and 88-8 in the 
Senate.
  At the one hearing that we had on this bill, I did not hear any 
support from the majority's witnesses. Most of them seemed to be 
somewhat embarrassed about the legislation and were unable to tell us 
anything that the legislation would accomplish in the public good or 
towards speeding up or improving the enforcement of Superfund.
  It was interesting to note that there was really no identification of 
what the legislation would do to cure the problems that we confront 
with regard to Superfund. The Superfund program has been a fine example 
of success after having had a rocky start, and we have seen substantial 
completion of construction activities at over 70 percent of the 
national priority sites. Thousands of other shorter-term actions have 
also been completed.
  Before charging headlong into solving problems that are not backed up 
with a factual record and with no showing whatsoever of a need for the 
legislation, I recommend that this body first gather the evidence that 
it needs from EPA, from States, from local governments, from industry 
and communities to better understand what, if any, problems need to be 
addressed. Until then, I fail to understand the purpose of this 
legislation other than a device to provide work for members of staff, 
to obfuscate the enforcement of Superfund and to, quite frankly, ignore 
the real problems which exist.
  Superfund is cursed with the fact that it has major difficulty in 
being properly funded because the funding for it has long since 
expired, and now the ability of the Nation to fund the cleanup is not 
available to us. This bill would do nothing to address any of the 
problems that are there to be seen. It is a bad bill. It should be 
rejected.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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. SHIMKUS. 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

[[Page H101]]

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. TONKO. 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. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from New 
York, the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 2279. This is an unnecessary and ill-advised piece of legislation 
that would significantly weaken our country's hazardous waste laws and 
further shift the burden of cleaning up these sites from the entities 
responsible for the contamination to the taxpayer instead.
  Mr. Chairman, polluters are already not paying their fair share to 
help clean up America's worst toxic sites, and this bill only makes 
things worse. Since 1995 when the Superfund taxes expired, taxpayers 
have shouldered an unreasonable responsibility to pay for these 
cleanups. I have a bill, the Superfund Polluter Pays Act, which would 
reauthorize the original Superfund fees and make polluters, not 
taxpayers, pay the costs of cleaning up Superfund sites. Congress needs 
to reinstate the ``polluter pays'' taxes so the industries most 
responsible for polluting our land and water are held responsible for 
cleaning up our toxic legacy, a legacy which severely affects my home 
State of New Jersey.
  But again we face the prospect of the Republican majority dismantling 
our Nation's critical environmental laws. The bill before us today is 
really a combination of three bills, all of which will hinder hazardous 
cleanup across the country. And I am especially troubled by provisions 
in the bill that enable sites to veto sites from being added to the 
Superfund National Priorities List, as well as the provision that 
weakens the requirement for companies who deal with hazardous materials 
to carry insurance to cover contamination threats. Absent this 
insurance requirement, it will be easier for a company to go bankrupt 
and shirk its responsibility to clean up contamination that it has 
caused.

  Mr. Chairman, cleaning up Superfund sites creates jobs by converting 
the contaminated areas into productive land ready for redevelopment and 
employing engineers, construction workers, and others engaged in the 
cleanup. I have seen this in my home State. New Jersey has more 
Superfund sites than any other State, and my county of Middlesex 
actually has more sites than any other county. But we have cleaned up a 
lot of these sites and created jobs. They are now used for recreation, 
for manufacturing, for shopping centers, so many other things.
  We don't want to weaken the Superfund law. That would be a huge 
mistake. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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.

[[Page H102]]

                      ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERALISM

       Whereas, the states are co-regulators with the federal 
     government in a federal system; and
       Whereas, the meaningful and substantial involvement of the 
     state environmental agencies as partners with the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is critical to 
     both the development and implementation of environmental 
     programs; and
       Whereas, the U.S. Congress has provided by statute for 
     delegation, authorization, or primacy (hereinafter referred 
     to collectively as ``delegation'') of certain federal program 
     responsibilities to states which, among other things, enables 
     states to establish state programs that go beyond the minimum 
     federal program requirements; and
       Whereas, States that have received delegation have 
     demonstrated to the U.S. EPA that they have the independent 
     authority to adopt and they have adopted laws, regulations, 
     and policies at least as stringent as federal laws, 
     regulations, and policies; and
       Whereas, states have further demonstrated their commitment 
     to environmental protection by taking responsibility for 96% 
     of the primary environmental programs which can be delegated 
     to states; and
       Whereas, because of this delegation, the state 
     environmental agencies have a unique position as co-
     regulators and co-funders of these programs; and
       Whereas, the delegation of new federal environmental rules 
     (issued as final and completed actions and published by the 
     U.S. EPA) to the states to implement continues at a steady 
     pace of about 28 per year since spring 2007, for a total of 
     approximately 143 new final rules and completed actions to 
     implement through fall 2011; and
       Whereas, federal financial support to implement 
     environmental programs delegated to the states has declined 
     since 2005; and
       Whereas, cuts in federal and state support adversely 
     affects the states' ability to implement federal programs in 
     a timely manner and to adequately protect human health and 
     the environment; and
       Whereas, states currently perform the vast majority of 
     environmental protection tasks in America, including 96% of 
     the enforcement and compliance actions; and collection of 
     more than 94% of the environmental quality data currently 
     held by the U.S. EPA; and
       Whereas, these accomplishments represent a success by the 
     U.S. EPA and the states working together in ways the U.S. 
     Congress originally envisioned to move environmental 
     responsibility to the states, not an indictment of the U.S. 
     EPA's performance; and
       Whereas, the U.S. EPA provides great value in achieving 
     protection of human health and the environment by fulfilling 
     numerous important functions, including; establishing minimum 
     national standards; ensuring state-to state consistency in 
     the implementation of those national standards; supporting 
     research and providing information; and providing 
     standardized pollution control activities across 
     jurisdictions; and
       Whereas, with respect to program operation, when a program 
     has been delegated to a state and the state is meeting the 
     minimum delegated program requirements, the role of the U.S. 
     EPA is oversight and funding support rather than state-level 
     implementation of programs; and
       Whereas, under some federal programs the U.S. EPA grants to 
     states the flexibility to adjust one-size-fits-all programs 
     to local conditions and to try new procedures and techniques 
     to accomplish agreed-upon environmental program requirements, 
     thereby assuring an effective and efficient expenditure of 
     the taxpayers' money. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the 
     environmental Council of the States: Affirms its continuing 
     support for the protection of human health and the 
     environment by providing for clean air, clean water, and 
     proper handling of waste materials;
       Affirms that states are co-regulators, co-funders and 
     partners with appropriate federal agencies, including the 
     U.S. EPA, and with each other in a federal environmental 
     protection system;
       Affirms the need for adequate funding for both state 
     environmental programs and the U.S. EPA, given the vitally 
     important role of both levels of government;
       Affirms that expansion of environmental authority to the 
     states is to be supported, while preemption of state 
     authority, including preemption that limits the state's 
     ability to establish environmental programs more stringent 
     than federal programs, is to be opposed;
       Supports the authorization or delegation of programs to the 
     states and believes that when a program has been authorized 
     or delegated, the appropriate federal focus should be on 
     program reviews, and, further, believes that the federal 
     government should intervene in such state programs where 
     required by court order or where a state fails to enforce 
     federal rules particularly involving spillovers of harm from 
     one state to another;
       Supports early, meaningful, and substantial state 
     involvement in the development and implementation of 
     environmental statutes, policies, rules, programs, reviews, 
     joint priority setting, budget proposals, budget processes, 
     and strategic planning, and calls upon the U.S. Congress and 
     appropriate federal agencies to provide expanded 
     opportunities for such involvement;
       Specifically calls on U.S. EPA to consult in a meaningful, 
     timely, and concurrent manner with the states' environmental 
     agencies in the priority setting, planning, and budgeting of 
     offices of the U.S. EPA as these offices conduct these 
     efforts;
       Further specifically calls on U.S. EPA to consult in a 
     meaningful and timely manner with the states' environmental 
     agencies regarding the U.S. EPA interpretation of federal 
     regulations, and to ensure that the U.S. EPA has fully 
     articulated its interpretation of federal regulations prior 
     to the U.S. EPA intervention in state programs;
       Believes that such integrated consultation will increase 
     mutual understanding, improve state-federal relations, remove 
     barriers, reduce costs, and more quickly improve the nation's 
     environmental quality;
       Noting the extensive contributions states have made to a 
     clean environment, affirms its belief that where the federal 
     government requires that environmental actions be taken, the 
     federal government ought to fund those actions, and not at 
     the expense of other state programs;
       Affirms that the federal government should be subject to 
     the same environmental rules and requirements, including the 
     susceptibility to enforcement that it imposes on states and 
     other parties;
       Affirms its support for the concept of flexibility and that 
     the function of the federal environmental agency is, working 
     with the states, largely to set goals for environmental 
     accomplishment and that, to the maximum extent possible, the 
     means of achieving those goals should be left primarily to 
     the states; especially as relates to the use of different 
     methods to implement core programs, such as risk-based 
     inspections or multi-media environmental programs, and 
     particularly in the development of new programs which will 
     impact both states and the U.S. EPA; and
       Directs ECOS staff to provide a copy of this resolution to 
     the U.S. EPA Administrator.


     CLARIFICATION OF CERCLA SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAIVER FOR FEDERAL 
                               FACILITIES

       Whereas, current and former federal facilities have some of 
     the most pressing environmental problems, such as hazardous 
     substances, unexploded ordnance, radioactive materials, and 
     abandoned mines; and
       Whereas, problems associated with some of these federal 
     facilities pose substantial threats to public health, safety, 
     and the environment; and
       Whereas, ECOS believes the States' regulatory role at 
     federal facilities should be recognized and that federal 
     agency environmental cleanup activities are subject to and 
     should receive the same regulatory oversight as private 
     entities; and
       Whereas, for many contamination actions the federal 
     agencies assert Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) lead agency authority 
     under Executive Order 12580; and
       Whereas, state experience for many contamination actions 
     has shown that assertions of sovereign immunity and CERCLA 
     lead agency authority have led to inappropriate and/or 
     inconsistent interpretation of state law and have not 
     supported cleanup to the same standards as private parties; 
     and
       Whereas, assertions of sovereign immunity and CERCLA lead 
     agency authority hamper consistent state regulatory oversight 
     and responsibility to its citizens; and
       Whereas, a clarification of Executive Order 12580 and/or 
     federal legislation would aid states in implementing 
     regulations which have been duly enacted by the states; and
       Whereas, this resolution fully supports Policy NR-03i 
     (specifically Section 3.5 on ``Natural Resources'') executed 
     by the National Governors' Association. Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved that the environmental Council of the States 
     (ECOS):
       Requests the Administration revise Executive Order 12580 to 
     clarify that federal facilities are subject to appropriate 
     state regulations and are not unduly shielded by sovereign 
     immunity and lead agency authority;
       Encourages the U.S. Congress act to support the States by 
     the implementation of specific legislation which will without 
     equivocation acknowledge state authority and regulatory 
     responsibility for oversight of removal and cleanup actions 
     at current and formerly owned or operated federal facilities; 
     and
       Authorizes the transmittal of this resolution to the 
     Administration, appropriate congressional committees, federal 
     agencies, and other interested organizations and individuals.

  Mr. TONKO. 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.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
and leadership here on the floor.
  When I first heard that we were going to be dealing with Superfund 
reforms and modifications, I was originally encouraged. I have been 
working with these issues on the Federal level, and before that, for 
almost 20 years, as a local official dealing with the problems of 
pollution in Superfund sites. I know that there are many challenges to 
the

[[Page H103]]

process and that it is chronically and dramatically underfunded. It is 
complex and cumbersome. Many of the participants are not fully equipped 
to be able to manage it. We have learned a little bit in the almost 30 
years since the legislation was passed, but I am sad to say I was very 
disappointed because, rather than dealing in a thoughtful, bipartisan 
way to try and refine the process, we are actually taking a step 
backward.
  This bill would water down the requirements and provide fewer 
dollars, blurring lines of responsibility. This is not going to help. 
The Superfund tax expired in 1995. Since then, we have been shifting 
the burden away from the petrochemical industry that created these 
problems in the main, shifting it to the general fund taxpayer, a 
scarce and dwindling supply.
  This isn't going to move away from litigation; it is going to make it 
more likely, if it were enacted, by confusing people. Changing the 
rules that people have operated under is not going to be helpful; it is 
going to slow it down further.
  I am deeply concerned that the Department of Defense has not fully 
met its obligation as the largest generator of Superfund sites in the 
United States. I have been on this floor repeatedly attempting to work 
through the budget process and the authorization process for us to step 
up and do right by people.
  I have got a harbor that was the staging area for three wars, and a 
significant amount of the pollution there that we are dealing with is 
as a result of that Defense Department operation. But what we are doing 
here would, according to the Department of Defense, disrupt the 
national priority scheme in which the most contaminated Federal sites 
are cleaned up first. It would increase litigation, delay cleanup, and 
waste already limited resources.
  Now, by pretending that somehow the State government is going to take 
the lead and compel Federal agencies to do things that may in fact be 
contrary to Federal law is not going to speed this process further. It 
is not going to make it easier. It is going to continue what is the 
problem. People today dig in their heels.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TONKO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. We haven't actually moved forward to try to work 
carefully, to thoughtfully, in a bipartisan session, refine it. We are 
going ahead and trying to superimpose on top of it things that will 
undercut that effort.
  Now, I am critical of what the Federal Government has done in some 
areas, but as a practical matter, local governments, by failure to 
zone, plan, regulate, and exercise oversight, have often been 
responsible for many of these problems. And they have, in the main, not 
stepped up and been aggressive with the strictest of standards. This 
would superimpose what are potentially less rigorous or, in fact, no 
local standards, be able to cost shift to the Federal Government 
without any interest in providing the resources for the Federal 
Government to do so.
  I would hope that our friends, if they are sincere, would spend time 
with people who are in the trenches and look for ways in a bipartisan, 
thoughtful way to refine the Superfund program so that, in the spirit 
of what originally created the legislation, we can do something that 
will do better by our constituents, better by the environment, and 
better by the taxpayer.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. 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. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, the polluter pays. The polluter pays, and 
that is a simple idea with very broad appeal. The company responsible 
for causing the pollution should have to pay for the cleanup. It makes 
sense. This bill would relieve many companies of that responsibility 
when it comes to the most polluted sites in the country. Instead, 
taxpayers will pick up the tab. It is another bailout.
  Currently, if a company is part of an industry with a record of 
pollution, it needs to post a bond or buy insurance. This requirement 
helps to prevent a company from polluting until it goes out of 
business, leaving the taxpayer with the bill for the cleanup.
  H.R. 2279 allows the company to skirt its financial responsibility, 
in essence, to internalize all the money they make while polluting but 
to externalize all of the costs after they are done and leaving 
everyone else to shoulder the burden. That is not free market 
enterprise; that is crony capitalism.
  The bill would also reduce funding for highly contaminated sites. It 
should be increasing funding for the sites so their cleanup does not 
drag on for decades. Less funding is not the answer. Because funding is 
already so short for these Superfund sites, we have to prioritize the 
worst sites for cleanup, and the result is the National Priorities 
List. This bill would disrupt that priority system.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of letting polluters off the hook, we should 
use the money to put people to work by cleaning up the long list of 
toxic sites all over the country that are exposing people to toxic 
waste, pushing down property values, and inhibiting economic growth.
  As I close, I just want to say that this bill, like so many bills 
offered by the majority, rests upon a falsehood, and that is that 
health and safety regulations hurt the economy. They don't. It is not 
true. It is a false statement, and there is no evidence for them to 
prove that it is true. And yet they want us to believe, as these 
companies deregulate and get tax cuts and all these other benefits, 
that they are going to use the extra money they get in order to create 
jobs, which they never do.
  Reject this bill. It is a bad idea.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. TONKO. 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. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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

[[Page H104]]

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 
CERCLA.
  The bill directs the EPA to gather information and report back to us 
before it promulgates any additional requirements. It does not 
otherwise preclude the EPA from enacting rules that the EPA determines 
are necessary. In fact, we understand that the EPA has already been 
gathering this information from the States and other Federal agencies 
like the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
  The bill simply sets out a process for us to learn what State and 
other agency requirements are out there and whether there is a need for 
more regulation before the EPA creates yet another layer of regulation. 
Contrary to what my colleagues are saying, the bill does not cut off 
any rulemaking by the EPA.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee print 113-30. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2279

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

            TITLE I--REDUCING EXCESSIVE DEADLINE OBLIGATIONS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Reducing Excessive 
     Deadline Obligations Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 102. REVIEW OF REGULATIONS UNDER THE SOLID WASTE 
                   DISPOSAL ACT.

       Section 2002(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6912(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Review of Regulations.--The Administrator shall 
     review, and revise, as the Administrator determines 
     appropriate, regulations promulgated under this Act.''.

     SEC. 103. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLASSES OF FACILITIES 
                   UNDER CERCLA.

       Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9608(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``Not later than three years after the date 
     of enactment of the Act, the President shall'' and inserting 
     ``The President shall, as appropriate,''; and
       (B) by striking ``first'' after ``for which requirements 
     will be''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``Financial responsibility may be 
     established'' and inserting ``Owners and operators may 
     establish financial responsibility'';
       (B) by striking ``any one, or any combination, of the 
     following:'' and inserting ``forms of security, including''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``or qualification'' and inserting ``and 
     qualification''.

     SEC. 104. REPORT TO CONGRESS REGARDING FINANCIAL 
                   RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9608(b)) 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) The President may not promulgate any financial 
     responsibility requirement under this subsection without 
     first submitting to Congress a report--
       ``(A) describing each facility or class of facilities to be 
     covered by such requirement;
       ``(B) describing the development of such requirement, why 
     the facility or class of facilities proposed to be covered by 
     such requirement present the highest level of risk of injury, 
     and why the facility or class of facilities is not already 
     covered by adequate financial responsibility requirements;
       ``(C) describing the financial responsibility requirements 
     promulgated by States or other Federal agencies for the 
     facility or class of facilities to be covered by the 
     financial responsibility requirement proposed under this 
     subsection and explaining why the requirement proposed under 
     this subsection is necessary;
       ``(D) describing the exposure to the Fund for response 
     costs resulting from the facility or class of facilities 
     proposed to be covered; and
       ``(E) describing the capacity of the financial and credit 
     markets to provide instruments of financial responsibility 
     necessary to meet such requirement.

     The President shall update any report submitted under this 
     paragraph to reflect any revision of the facilities or 
     classes of facilities to be covered by a financial 
     responsibility requirement that is the subject of such 
     report.''.

     SEC. 105. PREEMPTION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 114(d) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9614(d)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) No owner or operator of a vessel or facility who 
     establishes and maintains evidence of financial 
     responsibility associated with the production, 
     transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous 
     substances pursuant to financial responsibility requirements 
     under any State law or regulation, or any other Federal law 
     or regulation, shall be required to establish or maintain 
     evidence of financial responsibility under this title, unless 
     the President determines, after notice and opportunity for 
     public comment, that in the event of a release of a hazardous 
     substance that is not a federally permitted release or 
     authorized by a State permit, such other Federal or State 
     financial responsibility requirements are insufficient to 
     cover likely response costs under section 104. If the 
     President determines that such other Federal or State

[[Page H105]]

     financial responsibility requirements are insufficient to 
     cover likely response costs under section 104 in the event of 
     such a release, the President shall accept evidence of 
     compliance with such other Federal or State financial 
     responsibility requirements in lieu of compliance with any 
     portion of the financial responsibility requirements 
     promulgated under this title to which they correspond.''.

     SEC. 106. EXPLOSIVE RISKS PLANNING NOTIFICATION.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the owner or operator of each facility at which 
     substances listed in appendix A to part 27 of title 6, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, as flammables or explosives are 
     present above the screening threshold listed therein shall 
     notify the State emergency response commission for the State 
     in which such facility is located that such substances are 
     present at such facility and of the amount of such substances 
     that are present at such facility.

  TITLE II--FEDERAL AND STATE PARTNERSHIP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Federal and State 
     Partnership for Environmental Protection Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 202. CONSULTATION WITH STATES.

       (a) Removal.--Section 104(a)(2) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``Any 
     removal action undertaken by the President under this 
     subsection (or by any other person referred to in section 
     122) should'' and inserting ``In undertaking a removal action 
     under this subsection, the President (or any other person 
     undertaking a removal action pursuant to section 122) shall 
     consult with the affected State or States. Such removal 
     action should''.
       (b) Remedial Action.--Section 104(c)(2) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(c)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``before determining any appropriate remedial 
     action'' and inserting ``during the process of selecting, and 
     in selecting, any appropriate remedial action''.
       (c) Selection of Remedial Action.--Section 104(c)(4) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(c)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall select remedial actions'' and inserting 
     ``shall, in consultation with the affected State or States, 
     select remedial actions''.
       (d) Consultation With State and Local Officials.--Section 
     120(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(f)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``shall afford to'' and inserting ``shall 
     consult with'';
       (2) by inserting ``and shall provide such State and local 
     officials'' before ``the opportunity to participate in''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``If State or local 
     officials make a determination not to participate in the 
     planning and selection of the remedial action, such 
     determination shall be documented in the administrative 
     record regarding the selection of the response action.''.

     SEC. 203. STATE CREDIT FOR OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 104(c)(5) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9604(c)(5)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by inserting ``removal at such facility, or for'' 
     before ``remedial action''; and
       (B) by striking ``non-Federal funds.'' and inserting ``non-
     Federal funds, including oversight costs and in-kind 
     expenditures. For purposes of this paragraph, in-kind 
     expenditures shall include expenditures for, or contributions 
     of, real property, equipment, goods, and services, valued at 
     a fair market value, that are provided for the removal or 
     remedial action at the facility, and amounts derived from 
     materials recycled, recovered, or reclaimed from the 
     facility, valued at a fair market value, that are used to 
     fund or offset all or a portion of the cost of the removal or 
     remedial action.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``removal or'' after 
     ``under this paragraph shall include expenses for''.

     SEC. 204. STATE CONCURRENCE WITH LISTING ON THE NATIONAL 
                   PRIORITIES LIST.

       (a) Basis for Recommendation.--Section 105(a)(8)(B) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``Not later than 90 days after any 
     revision of the national list, with respect to a priority not 
     included on the revised national list, upon request of the 
     State that submitted the priority for consideration under 
     this subparagraph, the President shall provide to such State, 
     in writing, the basis for not including such priority on such 
     revised national list. The President may not add a facility 
     to the national list over the written objection of the State, 
     unless (i) the State, as an owner or operator or a 
     significant contributor of hazardous substances to the 
     facility, is a potentially responsible party, (ii) the 
     President determines that the contamination has migrated 
     across a State boundary, resulting in the need for response 
     actions in multiple States, or (iii) the criteria under the 
     national contingency plan for issuance of a health advisory 
     have been met.'' after ``the President shall consider any 
     priorities established by the States.''; and
       (2) by striking ``To the extent practicable, the highest 
     priority facilities shall be designated individually and 
     shall be referred to as'' and all that follows through the 
     semicolon at the end, and inserting ``Not more frequently 
     than once every 5 years, a State may designate a facility 
     that meets the criteria set forth in subparagraph (A) of this 
     paragraph, which shall be included on the national list;''.
       (b) State Involvement.--Section 121(f)(1)(C) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9621(f)(1)(C)) is amended by 
     striking ``deleting sites from'' and inserting ``adding sites 
     to, and deleting sites from,''.

     SEC. 205. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANT LAW.

       Section 121(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9621(d)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``State 
     environmental or facility siting law'' and inserting ``State 
     environmental, facility siting, or environmental covenant 
     law, or under a State law or regulation requiring the use of 
     engineering controls or land use controls,''.

               TITLE III--FEDERAL FACILITY ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Federal Facility 
     Accountability Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 302. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Application to Federal Government.--Section 120(a) of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(a)) is amended in the 
     heading by striking ``of Act''.
       (b) Application of Requirements to Federal Facilities.--
     Section 120(a)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9620(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``preliminary assessments'' and inserting 
     ``response actions'';
       (2) by inserting ``or'' after ``National Contingency 
     Plan,'';
       (3) by striking ``, or applicable to remedial actions at 
     such facilities''; and
       (4) by inserting ``or have been'' before ``owned or 
     operated''.
       (c) Applicability of Laws.--Section 120(a)(4) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(a)(4)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(4) Applicability of laws.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each department, agency, and 
     instrumentality of the United States shall be subject to, and 
     comply with, at facilities that are or have been owned or 
     operated by any such department, agency, or instrumentality, 
     State substantive and procedural requirements regarding 
     response relating to hazardous substances or pollutants or 
     contaminants, including State hazardous waste requirements, 
     in the same manner and to the same extent as any 
     nongovernmental entity.
       ``(B) Compliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The United States hereby expressly 
     waives any immunity otherwise applicable to the United States 
     with respect to any State substantive or procedural 
     requirement referred to in subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Injunctive relief.--Neither the United States, nor 
     any agent, employee, nor officer thereof, shall be immune or 
     exempt from any process or sanction of any State or Federal 
     Court with respect to the enforcement of any injunctive 
     relief under subparagraph (C)(ii).
       ``(iii) Civil penalties.--No agent, employee, or officer of 
     the United States shall be personally liable for any civil 
     penalty under any State substantive or procedural requirement 
     referred to in subparagraph (A), or this Act, with respect to 
     any act or omission within the scope of the official duties 
     of the agent, employee, or officer.
       ``(C) Substantive and procedural requirements.--The State 
     substantive and procedural requirements referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) include--
       ``(i) administrative orders;
       ``(ii) injunctive relief;
       ``(iii) civil and administrative penalties and fines, 
     regardless of whether such penalties or fines are punitive or 
     coercive in nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, 
     or continuing violations;
       ``(iv) reasonable service charges or oversight costs; and
       ``(v) laws or regulations requiring the imposition and 
     maintenance of engineering or land use controls.
       ``(D) Reasonable service charges or oversight costs.--The 
     reasonable service charges or oversight costs referred to in 
     subparagraph (C) include fees or charges assessed in 
     connection with--
       ``(i) the processing, issuance, renewal, or modification of 
     permits;
       ``(ii) the review of plans, reports, studies, and other 
     documents;
       ``(iii) attorney's fees;
       ``(iv) inspection and monitoring of facilities or vessels; 
     and
       ``(v) any other nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed 
     in connection with a State requirement regarding response 
     relating to hazardous substances or pollutants or 
     contaminants.''.

     SEC. 303. AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE, ISSUE REGULATIONS.

       Section 115 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9615) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``If 
     the President delegates or assigns any duties or powers under 
     this section to a department, agency, or instrumentality of 
     the United States other than the Administrator, the 
     Administrator may review, as the Administrator determines 
     necessary or upon request of any State, actions taken, or 
     regulations promulgated, pursuant to such delegation or 
     assignment, for purposes of ensuring consistency with the 
     guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria established by 
     the Administrator under this title.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those

[[Page H106]]

printed in part A of House Report 113-322. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Sinema

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 113-322.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, strike lines 13 and 14 and insert the following: 
     ``U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)) is amended by inserting ``Not later 
     than 90 days after''.
       Page 9, line 7, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       Page 9, strike lines 8 through 15.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. Sinema) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would strike language that expands eligibility for the 
National Priorities List in section 204, which is overseen by the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  My amendment also reinstates language that directs listings of the 
``highest priority facilities'' for cleanup and guarantees that State-
recommended sites receive priority.

                              {time}  1515

  In 2003, an agreement was finalized to provide much-needed cleanup to 
the North Indian Bend Wash site in my district. The site, formerly used 
for industrial production and manufacturing, now spans several housing 
developments in which thousands of Arizona families, students and 
seniors reside.
  Since then, Federal, State, and local stakeholders have worked 
together to put a 25-year plan in place to address soil and water 
contamination at this site, but those plans have not gone 
uninterrupted. In January of 2008, more than 3.5 million gallons of 
contaminated water were mistakenly delivered from this site to homes in 
Paradise Valley, and in July of that same year, irrigation water used 
from this site triggered a study at an elementary school in my district 
to determine if the school grounds had been contaminated.
  The North Indian Bend Wash site is one of many sites across the 
country listed under the National Priorities List, which provides much-
needed funding to assist States with cleanup efforts.
  In keeping with the mission of the National Priorities List, which is 
to protect public health, my amendment protects funding for important 
cleanup projects, like the North Indian Bend Wash, that are taking 
place in hundreds of communities across the country.
  The underlying bill would expand eligibility for the National 
Priorities List, stretching its mission beyond its current financial 
means without providing additional funding to accommodate this 
expansion. My amendment prevents this unfunded expansion.
  In times of financial shortfall, we should ensure that we efficiently 
and responsibly use taxpayers dollars to prioritize projects by need 
and maximize our impact on improving public health. While I agree that 
providing more robust State input is essential to crafting better 
environmental policy, H.R. 2279 would actually repeal language that 
requires the administration to prioritize the most urgent and impactful 
State projects for cleanup.
  I also believe that striking the ``highest priority facilities'' 
language, as called for in the underlying bill, may have the unintended 
consequence of diminishing the statutory role that States would have in 
determining the EPA's cleanup priorities. The underlying bill strikes 
the only clause in the current law that explicitly protects states' 
rights with NPL. Without this language, it is possible that the 
underlying bill could result in the EPA's placing certain projects that 
States have requested at the bottom of its funding priorities on the 
NPL while still following the law. My amendment reinstates this 
language, directing the EPA to make tough choices that necessarily 
respect the interests of our States.
  We all share the desire to work towards commonsense, reasonable 
solutions, using tax dollars wisely, facilitating job growth and 
improving public health. This amendment provides a meaningful fix to 
the underlying bill by preventing an unfunded expansion of the NPL and 
directing the administration to make tough choices that respect the 
rights of States. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney), my colleague.

[[Page H107]]

  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of my colleague's amendment requiring the EPA to stay focused on the 
National Priorities List.
  There are nine Superfund sites where I am from in the Hudson Valley 
of New York. Toxic sites once declared uninhabitable are now engines of 
economic development, and I want to credit the good folks at the EPA, 
including my friend Judith Enck, who leads Region 2, but one Hudson 
Valley community with poison in its water has waited over 10 years for 
a solution.
  The EPA began cleanup at the site in Hopewell Junction in 2003 and 
officially added Hopewell to the Superfund National Priorities List in 
2005. Hopewell Junction isn't some abandoned wasteland, and it isn't an 
empty brownfield. It is a community full of children and families who 
need our help and who need our help now. Hopewell could be a 
neighborhood anywhere, a neighborhood in which families shouldn't have 
to choose between clean water and their children's health, between 
selling their houses or staying in a place where they grew up and loved 
but is now contaminated. My neighbors, like Debra Hall, have put blood, 
sweat and tears into this effort for 10 years to try to clean up 
Hopewell--10 years telling anyone who would listen that Hopewell must 
be a priority because they can't wait.

  It is outrageous, and they deserve better from their government. I 
support this amendment to keep our priorities straight, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I share the desire of my Republican colleagues to increase the input 
provided by and the role of States in listing facilities on the 
National Priorities List, but by adding more sites to an already 
overwhelmed program, we may diminish the effectiveness of this 
important program.
  I am also concerned that the underlying bill, by striking the current 
statutory language that directs the EPA to give State-recommended sites 
priority, could have the unintended consequence of decreasing the role 
of States in this process. For these reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 113-322.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

     TITLE IV--AVOIDING INCREASED LITIGATION AND DELAYS IN CLEANUPS

     SEC. 401. AVOIDING INCREASED LITIGATION AND DELAYS IN 
                   CLEANUPS.

       This Act shall not take effect if any provision thereof 
     would increase the potential for litigation, reduce the 
     amount of funds available for the cleanup of contaminated 
     sites, or delay the implementation of any such cleanup.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TONKO. 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. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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

[[Page H108]]

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.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. TONKO. 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. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 113-322 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Sinema of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Sinema

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 228, not voting 15, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 7]

                               AYES--189

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Cleaver
     Crowley
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Guthrie
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1559

  Messrs. BOUSTANY, BROOKS of Alabama, WHITFIELD, HULTGREN, HUDSON, 
FLEISCHMANN, GOHMERT, LoBIONDO, Mrs. BACHMANN, and Messrs. TERRY and 
GALLEGO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H109]]

  Ms. LEE of California and Mr. SIRES changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 9, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 227, not voting 15, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 8]

                               AYES--190

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--227

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Cleaver
     Crowley
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Guthrie
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1605

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Collins of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2279) to 
amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act relating to review of regulations 
under such Act and to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 relating to financial 
responsibility for classes of facilities, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 455, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. PETERS of California. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. PETERS of California, moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2279 to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report the bill 
back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
     At the end of the bill, add the following new title:


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 
January 9, 2014, on page H109, the following appeared: The SPEAKER pro 
tempore. TheClerk will report the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as 
     follows: At the end of the bill, add the following new title:


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 
    The online version should be corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro 
 tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit. The Clerk read 
 as follows: Mr. PETERS of California, moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
   2279 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to 
    report the bill back to the House forthwith with the following 
    amendment: At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE IV--PRESERVING THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE AND LIMITING EXPOSURE 
                           TO TOXIC CHEMICALS

     SEC. 401. PRESERVING THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE AND LIMITING 
                   EXPOSURE TO TOXIC CHEMICALS.

       This Act shall not take effect if any provision thereof 
     would result in--
       (1) fewer contaminated sites being cleaned up each year, or 
     the responsibility for cleaning up a contaminated site being 
     shifted from the polluter to the taxpayer; or
       (2) greater long-term exposure for vulnerable populations, 
     including populations in pre-schools, elementary and 
     secondary schools, hospitals, and nursing homes within 5 
     miles of contaminated sites, to arsenic, mercury, cadmium, 
     polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), perchlorate, or other toxic 
     substances that pollute drinking water or cause adverse human 
     health effects, such as respiratory disease, cancer, or 
     reproductive disorders.

  Mr. PETERS of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Clerk dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?

[[Page H110]]

  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PETERS of California. 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.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in 
opposition to the motion.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 225, not voting 19, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 9]

                               AYES--188

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al

[[Page H111]]


     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--225

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Barton
     Cleaver
     Crowley
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sinema
     Smith (WA)
     Stockman
     Terry

                              {time}  1623

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 188, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               AYES--225

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--188

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas

[[Page H112]]


     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Aderholt
     Barton
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gingrey (GA)
     Guthrie
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Smith (WA)
     Stockman

                              {time}  1631

  Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 10 on Final 
Passage of H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act 
of 2013, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________