Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2014)

[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

[[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.''

____________________