John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full 5 minutes. I have repeatedly expressed my great respect and affection for the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and I again do so at this time because he is a very fine person and a very valuable Member of this body. I do rise, as has the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], to express concern about the fact that funds for the Council on Environmental Quality have been stricken from the bill. When the Congress adopted the basic legislation, the National Environmental Policy Act, years ago, as a matter of fact some 30 years ago, it was our purpose to set up one agency inside the Office of the President. The function of that agency would be to advise the President on environmental matters, to serve as a clearinghouse on environmental matters and concerns, to see to it that the differing and diverse policies of the Federal Government on the area of environment were knit together in something of a better unitary whole than that which had been done before. We found that the Council on Environmental Quality over the years has done so, and it is an agency which is small in number and which is low in budget, but which nevertheless has contributed enormously by seeing to it that different policies on the environment adopted by different agencies inside the Federal Government are rationalized, are harmonized, and that the agencies talk together and work together to resolve differences so we can have coherence rather than cacophony. I am deeply troubled that these monies have been stricken almost in their entirety. I do urge my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, to try and do something to get this money back in here or at least a little because the agency serves an enormously valuable purpose. Without it there will be no coherence in the environmental policies of the United States, and I think that that would be a calamity.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful. I do not think we need it, but I want to thank my good friend. There is one bill pending, but that bill will not be enacted this year because it is only going to come up in September, and we are going to be very busy during the month of September. What this failure to adopt this amendment will do to us is it will mean that committees will be dawdling while the country is afflicted with some 58 sites which are decided already to be imminently dangerous to the public health [[Page H 8020]] welfare and to the environment. There will be no cleanup, there will be no new starts. Pollution of ground water, air, soil, and surface water will continue unabated. How many Americans will have to die because we do not address this? How many will get cancer? How many will suffer health failures and health problems because of this failure? There are some 52 congressional districts and some 58 sites involved here. I plead with my colleagues, and I say this with respect to my good friends on the Republican side, let us clean up these sites, let us spend the money, let us do what has to be done now. The money is here. The appropriations arrangement will move the money from where it is not needed to where it is, and we can begin to address an imminent problem immediately affecting the health and the well-being of American people in some 19 States and in some 58 areas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to try to summarize this very briefly, and I do so with great respect to the chairman of the subcommittee, also the chairman of the legislative subcommittee. The issue before us is very simple. The gentleman is going to conclude; all I am going to do is use 1 minute.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will yield further, that is correct, and these are Superfund sites, because they have been chosen under the criteria as areas and as contamination sources which impose imminent endangerment upon the public health in the area. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, Washington, DC, July 26, 1995. Hon. John D. Dingell, Ranking Member, House Commerce Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Dingell: I am writing on behalf of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), whose membership includes the State cleanup program managers. Our members are engaged in the day- to-day remediation of sites throughout the country and therefore have a fundamental interest in ensuring the Superfund program is adequately funded. The purpose of this letter is to communicate our strong support for your amendment to H.R. 2099 restoring $440 million to the Superfund budget. After 15 years of experience with the Superfund program, many NPL sites are now in the remedial design and construction phase. Delaying site progress at this stage will have far reaching impacts, i.e., the overall costs associated with these sites will increase; contamination, if left unabated, could spread; and most importantly, surrounding communities will continue to be subjected to health risks posed from these sites. We believe an expectation has been created in the minds of the American public that no matter where one lives or what economic class one belongs to, human health will be protected. As we understand, your amendment will allow at least fifty-five (55) remedial and removal actions to proceed uninterrupted. While the federal Superfund program is directly responsible for ensuring the remediation of approximately 1300 NPL sites, it can also be credited with indirectly spurring the growth of over 20 State Voluntary cleanup programs and over 40 State Superfund programs. As of 1992 State programs have remediated 2,689 sites and are currently working on an additional 11,000 active sites. The Federal Superfund program provides the backbone for these cleanups and must be sufficiently funded. State Waste Officials thank you for your support. Sincerely, Teresa D. Hay, President.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Mr. DINGELL. The Republicans killed it.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. My good friend from Ohio, for whom I have the most enormous respect, sent a letter to the appropriating subcommittee, which I will insert the entirety of in the Record because I know the gentleman has forgotten sending the letter, in which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and this letter written to you, to my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], ``Therefore, we respectfully request that you include in your subcommittee mark of the VA- [[Page H 8018]] HUD appropriations bill an appropriation for the Superfund program of at least $1.5 billion in new budgetary authority,'' quite different from what my friend from Ohio tells us today. I would also remind my good friend from Ohio that last year, out of the Committee on Commerce came a bill passed 44 to nothing which was endorsed and supported by the administration, by industry, by the environmentalists and by everybody on the committee. It has been reintroduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] and me, and lies in the gentleman's subcommittee. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, June 20, 1995. Hon. Jerry Lewis, Chairman, Subcommittee on VA-HUD and Independent Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Dear Jerry: As you know, the authorization of appropriations for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), commonly known as Superfund, expired at the end of fiscal year 1994, and the program has been operating without an authorization since then. The various committees of jurisdiction have tried unsuccessfully for years to make Superfund into a program that achieves the goal of protection of human health and the environment. We intend to reverse that failed record this year by reforming Superfund to make it fairer, cheaper, and more effective. We are writing to request your assistance in rebuilding this broken program from the bottom up. We want to ensure that Superfund is actually protecting Amercians from the hazards of toxic waste and not just financing another generation of lawyers at the expense of the taxpayers. To do that, we need a program focusing on finding cost effective solutions to hazards rather than on assessing blame and raising funds. At the heart of the Superfund ``blame game'' is the system of strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability. If we, the authorizing committees, are to reform this program and get Superfund out of the courts and onto these sites, then we must comprehensively reform the current Superfund liability system, including a repeal of retroactive liability. In order to do that and still ensure that truly hazardous sites are being cleared up, we must have the maximum funding possible for fiscal year 1996 and into the future. Therefore, we respectfully request that you include in your Subcommittee mark of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill an appropriation for the Superfund program of at least $1.5 billion in new budget authority. This amount is consistent with funding levels for previous years, and is necessary to ensure that we have the operating funds necessary in the first years of the reformed program. We are open to working with you on reprogramming funds within Superfund to ensure that this year's program is consistent with the goals we have set forth for our reform effort. There is broad consensus that Superfund is a broken program in need of immediate fixing. If we cannot achieve the kind of meaningful, comprehensive reform of CERCLA that all of us believe is necessary--and which prior Congresses have been unable to deliver--this is a program which simply should not be continued. Accordingly, we also ask that you make the availability of appropriations for Superfund beyond December 31, 1995 contingent upon the enactment of CERCLA's reauthorization. We believe the program should be terminated if we cannot pass a Superfund reform worthy of being signed into law. Thank you for considering our views. We stand ready to work with you to reach a consensus on a reform package allowing us to achieve the kinds of fundamental reforms necessary while fulfilling our common goal of a balanced budget. Sincerely, Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Bud Shuster, Michael G. Oxley.

Mr. DINGELL. The answer to the question is ``yes,'' and I have a letter on that point which we will insert in the Record at the appropriate time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which I offer on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], my friend and colleague. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Without the adoption of this amendment, 58 new starts of cleanups of hazardous sites will not be begun; there will be, without the adoption of this amendment, no new Superfund cleanups started next year. The amendment is a very simple one. All it does is put about $400 million more into Superfund. It takes it out of FEMA. We have it costed out very carefully by the Congressional Budget Office. Some 52 Members of this body will find that the land, the air, the water, the subsurface waters of their districts will continue to be contaminated with imminent endangerment to the health, welfare, and environment of their people and the districts that they serve. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment because, I reiterate, without the adoption of this amendment, there will be no new starts under the cleanup program. At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I will insert into the Record a list including these 58 sites and the areas in which they are located. Why is the amendment necessary? Because, as reported, the legislation contains a harmful reduction in the Superfund program of over $500 million below the President's budget request and more than $140 million below the fiscal year 1995 level. Under this greatly reduced funding, progress at many sites will be frozen. Many other cleanups will be stopped. No new starts will occur, and there will be significant delays in cleanups all throughout the programs and throughout the sites in many parts of the country. This is going to affect, I reiterate, the air, the water, the subsurface water, the soil, the environment and the health of the people in the area. This makes no sense. If this amendment is not passed, the new sites that are now scheduled for cleanup--and all that has to be started is to do the digging and the work of making the cleanup move forward--will not start. Communities will be denied cleanups that have been promised and in many cases contamination of the air, the water, the soil, and the subsurface waters especially, will continue to spread, and other cleanups further down the pipeline will have to wait even longer. From a financial and cost standpoint, stopping these cleanups fits the old adage of ``penny wise and pound foolish.'' Spreading contamination means ultimately higher cleanup costs, greater risk to the health and welfare of the American people. And stopping cleanups can harm and hurt economic development as well as the health of the people. By stopping cleanups ready to go, which will happen unless this amendment is adopted, Congress will be breaching faith with the citizens who live around these areas and the affected communities. The amendment, as I have observed, is outlay neutral, and it should be observed that cleaning up and protecting the health and the welfare of the American people by good forward on sites now ready to start, some 58 of them in districts of Members in every part of this country, Republican and Democratic districts alike, is something that we must address forthwith. I urge my colleagues that the amendment be adopted. Mr. Chairman, let us begin the cleanups on these sites which would otherwise be stopped. I remind my colleagues, without this amendment, there will be no new starts on cleanup of Superfund sites in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. What the gentleman is telling me is that we are spending Superfund moneys for other purposes. amendment no. 38 offered by mr. dingell

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, that is rather peculiar, and it is not in conformity with the intention of the House and the Senate when they passed the original Superfund legislation or the amendments to it, because that was supposed to be a trust fund for the cleanup of these hazardous waste sites.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about my amendment; I am asking a question to find out how this money is being spent. I am told that we are going to spend a billion for cleanup. We have $1.6 billion in Superfund, but we are spending General Fund moneys; is that correct? [[Page H 8016]]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise with great respect for the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the committee, to discuss a matter which I think is of importance to the House. I have here before me a release from the Chemical Manufacturers Association in which this trade association of the businesses which pay most of the costs of the Superfund tax are complaining. In the beginning it says, nearly three-quarters of all Americans believe that money paid to the Federal Government to clean up our hazardous waste sites should not be diverted to other Federal programs or to help pay for the Federal deficit according to a recent national public opinion survey. It goes on to discuss whether or not a prohibition for that use exists, and it points out, more properly, that no such prohibition does exist. Then, Mr. Fred Weber, the president of the Chemical Manufacturers Association which sponsored the research, says, and I quote now, ``Almost from the very beginning, Superfund has been used by the government as a cash cow. This has to stop. Every dollar raised for Superfund should be spent on cleanups, not on other programs, and not on deficit reduction.'' That is the thing, I think, with which every Member of this body fully agrees. It certainly was the intention of the committees of the House, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Commerce, when we adopted that legislation, that this would be a trust fund, it would be protected against being raided for such interesting programs as it has been tapped for, for other purposes. Mr. Weber in his press release goes on to state as follows: ``Nearly $3 billion originally intended for cleaning up waste sites has been used for deficit reduction and to offset the cost of other Federal programs and administrative costs such as at the Environmental Protection Agency and at other agencies. ``For example, the Congress has used Superfund money to offset the costs of developing the Space Station,'' and he goes on to say the fact that Superfund money has been used by the government on things other than cleaning up waste sites is one of the great untold stories of the program. It is also one of its greatest outrages, and he goes on to say a little later, ``For years the government has collected more money for Superfund than it spends. For example, in fiscal year 1994, total Superfund receipts were nearly $2.1 billion. However, the Congress appropriated only about $1.5 billion for Superfund activities. By earmarking the nearly $600 million in excess Superfund collections for deficit reduction and for use by other agencies, the Congress avoided having to cut spending to meet other budget guidelines.'' Mr. Chairman, I am telling my colleagues something which is very important. Shortly we are going to be considering an amendment which will address the question of whether we are going to have new starts under Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites now ready. Moneys which would normally be available for that activity are not being spent here. I would like the attention of my dear friend and my respected colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], on this matter, because I am told that the moneys that are being spent for Superfund cleanups are General Fund moneys, and the Superfund moneys in the Superfund account or trust fund are not, in fact, being so spent. In point of fact, we are going to spend a little over a billion dollars on cleanup, but we have about $1.6 billion in the trust fund. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman from California tell me whether I am correct on that point?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us establishes a very bad precedent. One of the ancient rules of this body is that we should legislate in the legislative committees and appropriate in the appropriation committees. The bill makes a series of decisions that are unwise. It has more than 20 riders affecting different clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, and other environmental statutes. It removes a number of capabilities of EPA to protect the environment and the health of the people under a series of laws written and supported overwhelmingly on the floor of this House by the legislative committees and by the House itself. It has provisions in these riders that are so badly written, that it is impossible to tell what they mean. For example, in its provision for protection of whole agricultural plants, the provision is so badly written that it protects either a stalk of wheat or a grain miller from action by EPA. It protects a sugar beet or a sugar processor. Clearly that is not good and that is not right. It goes further. It says if there is some kind of an audit involving production of information, that the environmental actions by EPA are either severely impaired or made impossible. It goes to another point. Any State which is in litigation under title V, Operating Permits, is literally assured that there can be no Federal enforcement action, even if it involves matters on that point other than those which are involved in the enforcement action, thus stripping EPA of the ability to protect the American people and stripping the American people of very important enforcement actions. The amendment is a good one; the bill is a bad one. Legislative riders on Committee on Appropriations work should be avoided at all costs. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy discussing rules and praising and saluting my dear friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], one of the finest and most able men up here. He presides over his committee with extraordinary grace and dignity. It is always a privilege for me to appear before him. He has, however, presented to the House a bad rule. It is a bad rule on a bad bill, and it enhances his reputation as ``Closed Rule Solomon.'' What has he done? He slashes, the bill slashes, EPA funding. It is crammed full of legislative riders that are designed to eviscerate the environmental statutes that currently protect our lands, our waters, and air. It is also interesting to note that these legislative riders which eviscerate the environmental laws are protected by points of order. As I stated in my testimony before the Committee on Rules, I strongly object to a rollback in the Nation's environmental protections without public debate and without concurrence of the legislative committees. My good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], announced that he had had the concurrence of the legislative committees. I know of no concurrence that was given by our Committee on Energy and Commerce. Nor do I know of any concurrence given by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure chaired by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. Now, while I do not dispute those words, the complete lack of even a minute of discussion of waivers provided by this rule of any authorizing committee leads me to question the process. It is at best curious, it is certainly outrageous, and it is very clearly antienvironment and anti-the-public interests. The rule allows dramatic changes in the environmental laws of the United States using the back door of an appropriations bill, something which is prohibited in the rules unless waived by the Committee on Rules. There has been little or no public discussion of better than two dozen riders that are attached. Some totally stop implementation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Others create unprecedent new privileges allowing States to shield companies from Federal enforcement actions and from criminal prosecution. Image that. Others arbitrarily create special exemptions from various provisions for oil and gas industries. Not only do these change policy, but they do it in a manner which is, frankly, incompetent and sloppy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to understand. At issue here is not whether we like contractors or whether we have got them in our districts. It is not whether or not we like government or do not like government. The question is really whether we are going to write law which is in the broad public interest. The question is also whether or not we are going to see to it that corrupt practices in government contracting, investigated by congressional committees and document under oath before those congressional committees, are properly respected by this body and that the recommendations are properly carried out. By driving the money changers from the temple and by seeing to it that EPA can properly administer its affairs. Those are the questions. Frankly, the amendment, as originally drawn, should be rejected. Very frankly, the amendment as it was amended, and I fought to oppose it, because it is better than what was there. And I am sure my colleagues on this side are going to vote for it in spite of the fact that it is unwise to do so. It is a hard and unfortunate fact, my colleagues, that what is at foot here is just that a bunch of contractors do not like getting shoved away from the public trough. They wanted to stay there and keep on doing the same things which they have done in times past, paying themselves for work not done, doing work without contracts, claiming that there were contracts where in fact none exist, showering upon themselves and their friends the joys of being unsupervised in the expenditure of public moneys, hiring Johnnie Limbo and the Lug Nuts, buying lots of alcohol, dressing in reindeer suits, and pretending to do something of value. Now, just one little story. When we were working one night late trying to come together between the House and the Senate with my Republican colleagues and my Democratic colleagues alike, we tried to get some of these contractors to provide the information that we needed on a very important question; namely, the question affecting the implementation of the clean air sections of the law. Members should know that we could not find any of them, and we could not get any cooperation. We finally got information which was carefully cooked, carefully cooked to suit the environmentalists an to write legislation which made it much harder for American industry and American workmen, American business and the American economy. I want Members to understand what happens when these sly, slick, sneaky contractors come in here and they want the Congress to give them special relief. Congress ought not give them special relief. They do not deserve it. As a matter of fact, what they deserve is a comfortable period of time in an appropriate Federal institution during which they might think of the wrongs which they have done to the taxpaying public of the United States. The amendment is a bad one, even as amended. I urge Members to support the amendment as amended. And if they really want to do some good, I urge them to vote against the whole darn thing.

Mr. DINGELL. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I feel my amendment might just get lost in the shuffle, but I am sure the gentleman will want to assure me that the amendment I want to offer on the Superfund will not be foreclosed.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do not know what the second amendment is. Continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] to find out what this amendment is.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman forgive me about being sensitive?