Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I join today with Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Borski, Mr. Rush, Mr. Klink, Mr. Manton, Mr. Towns, and Ms. Furse in introducing legislation to redevelop abandoned or underutilized industrial sites. As many as 500,000 sites that once sustained industrial or commercial activities now lie vacant or idle across the country in our rural and urban areas. Returning these sites to productive use must be an important national goal. This legislation is intended to promote the cleanup and redevelopment of such abandoned properties, commonly referred to as ``brownfields.'' Too often the private sector is deterred from redeveloping such brownfields because of their high cleanup costs and the potentially open-ended liability associated with undiscovered contamination. Likewise, cities have lacked the resources to assess contamination levels at abandoned sites or to help finance cleanups. Like many cities across the country, St. Louis has hundreds--perhaps thousands--of abandoned sites that sit idle and need to be reused. In many cases, private owners have simply given up on their properties, allowing them to revert to the public domain; the municipality of St. Louis owns more than 40,000,000 square feet of abandoned property and buildings. But many other underused sites remain in private hands as well. St. Louis has seen some neighborhoods deteriorate as investment and jobs have gone elsewhere. Many times it has been more attractive for businesses to invest in untouched property that does not carry with it potential environmental liability and expensive cleanup costs. Thus, many sites--the old Carondelet Coke plant in south St. Louis City, areas along the Mississippi riverfront, and the former National Lead site in St. Louis County--remain unused. Our goal is to encourage the cleanup and reuse of brownfields for productive uses, thus bringing new job opportunities to blighted areas. This bill contains provisions to encourage private sector investment in redevelopment and provide cities with the resources to coordinate site characterization and promote cleanups. There are three major objectives. First, this legislation provides cities new resources necessary to promote the cleanup of sites. Developers or purchasers often find capital out of reach when potentially costly environmental liabilities are present. In addition, cities often have difficulty in obtaining the necessary resources to assess the extent of toxicity of individual sites, the first step in brownfield redevelopment. To help provide funding that the private sector cannot always provide, the bill authorizes the EPA to provide funds from the Superfund trust fund for cleanup activities. Local government entities, such as the St. Louis community development agency, would be able to apply and compete for interest-free loans or grants to perform site assessments and cleanup activities. The grants and loans would be competitively awarded based on their capacity to create new jobs, as well as the amount of local participation and financial support. The cities have emphasized that site characterizations and assessments are extremely useful in marketing contaminated sites to prospective buyers or developers. After determining the level of contamination, parties are more inclined to invest in brownfield properties since the projected cleanup costs are better known. This bill authorizes the EPA to provide [[Page E 1623]] up to $15 million annually from the Superfund to local governments to perform such assessments. Furthermore, to facilitate cleanups, the bill authorizes the use of up to $30 million annually in loans to finance remediation activities. Second, this legislation clarifies the lender liability issue in order to encourage private sector investment. The Fleet Factors case obscured the intent of Superfund's secured-lenders exemption. This confusion has made many lenders reluctant to become involved in potentially contaminated properties. Bankers now often fear that their interest may make them subject to cleanup liability for newly discovered or released contamination. The bill makes it clear that lenders who are merely performing a lending function and not managing a site's daily operations or contributing to the contamination can lend for redevelopment purposes without fear of incurring large environmental liabilities. The bill also provides protections to lenders who act in their capacity as fiduciaries. Third, this legislation provides protection for good faith prospective purchasers. To protect innocent landowners from Superfund liability when they acquire property subsequently found to be contaminated, the bill exempts prospective purchasers from such liability if certain precautionary measures are taken. Under Superfund, the owner of a contaminated tract of land may be held responsible for cleaning it up even if the pollution was created by the prior owner. Thus, potential purchasers are often deterred from investing in sites with potential contamination. This provision allows a purchaser who checks the site carefully before purchase to avoid liability if contamination is subsequently discovered. This legislation is the result of our discussions with many leaders on this issue. St. Louis Mayor Freeman Bosley, Jr., cochair of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Brownfields Committee, has been committed to finding solutions to problems associated with brown- fields. We have also worked closely with St. Louis lenders, environmentalists, and the St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association. Finally, I am pleased that this bill has the support of the National League of Cities. Their contributions helped us focus on the most critical problems and develop solutions that are workable in an era of fiscal limits. This legislation does not solve all aspects of the brownfields redevelopment problem. The solutions require a comprehensive reform of the Superfund bill, of the sort that nearly passed the House last year. There are also other aspects of the problem--such as those involving the treatment of leaking underground storage tanks--that must be addressed as well. Generally, this legislation begins us on the way toward confronting the most important factors that have blocked the redevelopment of communities throughout urban and rural America. I thank all of my colleagues, particularly Mr. Brown and Mr. Dingell, for their hard work in developing this bill.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I would like to ask the majority leader if Members could be assured that there would not be a vote in the morning until 8:45 a.m.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire of the distinguished majority leader the schedule for the rest of the evening.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, what bill will be up in the morning at what time?

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to denounce this mindless and mean-spirited package of budget cuts and to urge every one of my colleagues to cast their vote against it. This appropriations bill is more than a handful of budget reductions to balance the Nation's budget, it is more than a few policy changes about which we could rationally and reasonably disagree, Mr. Chairman, this appropriations bill is a dagger pointed at the heart of working Americans. It is a dangerous repeal of basic standards and protections that have been in place in this country for nearly a century. If we pass it, America in the 1990's will look more and more like America in the 1890's. Mr. Chairman, like the days of the Robber Barons, we will have a Republican America where hard-working people are overworked, underpaid, and underprotected. We will have a Republican America where corporate titans wreak trickle-down tax cuts while we slash education, slash job training, slash summer jobs, and any chance of protecting average workers from abuse and exploitation. Is that really what we should be doing? Is that really what America voted for last November; a Congress that doles out tax breaks for the few and partisan punishment for the many? Mr. Chairman, the sole central purpose of this Government is to fight for working families and the middle class, to work as partners with the private sector, to lift up wages and incomes and our standard of living. That used to be a bipartisan commitment in this House. Judged by that goal, however, we are already in a crisis. Wages and incomes have been falling for all but the wealthiest Americans for a decade and a half, and, thanks to failed Republican policies, two-thirds of all the new wealth in the boom years of the 1980's went to the top 1 percent of earners. The bottom 80 percent actually saw their wealth decline in that period. Mr. Chairman, in the midst of a business boom, the Labor Department recently reported the greatest yearly wage decline in nearly 150 years. If you do not know what that means, come back to my district, or many of the districts across the country. Go door to door and meet the families that I meet: Parents who work two and three jobs, barely ever seeing their children; couples that spend their precious time together fighting over their bills and their inability to pay their bills. Are we proud of this legacy? Does that bad turn really deserve another? That is why Democrats have resisted a Republican agenda that slashes Medicare, student loans, and education to pay for a tax cut for people that have it made. We cannot afford a transfer of wealth in this country for people who work to people who are wealthy and no longer work. Mr. Chairman, I suppose we could differ on supply side policies, but who, in good conscience, can support today's assault on workplace decency and children's opportunity? This bill slashes education, it slashes training, it slashes the standards under which our workers have been protected. The result is a damaging downward spiral: Even more children starting school unhealthy and unable to learn; even more Americans unable to find jobs and prepare for them; even more of the sweat shop standards that Democrats and Republicans together used to strive to eliminate for nearly a century. These are not partisan issues. These are human issues. When it comes to enforcing basic standards and decency, Government has a role. When it comes to ensuring access to education and health, Government has a role. This bill not only denies it, it destroys it. A vote for this bill is a vote against America's working families. A vote for this bill is a vote for a lower standard of living. A vote for this bill is a vote for a meaner, tougher America where the dream of rising wages will be nothing but a mirage. This is not the vision of our people, Mr. Chairman, and it is not what the people of this country want. I urge Members on both sides of this aisle to reject this bill as wrong headed and mean spirited, and to stand together in a bipartisan way and say that we can do better for the working people of this country.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this resolution. I want to talk this afternoon about what is moral and what is right for our country and for the people in Bosnia. However, first, I want to talk to the Members who voted for a resolution of this kind a few weeks back. I want to urge them to change their vote. I want to argue to them that there are two reasons, in fact, three, to do that. First, the situation on the ground in these 3 or 4 weeks has changed. The complexity of the war is now in full view, as the Croatians are about to enter the war again, and there is even talk of the Serbians coming back from Serbia proper and having a much wider conflagration than we contemplated 3 or 4 weeks ago. Second, I want to argue that the President's and the West's policy has changed dramatically in these last 2 or 3 weeks. There is no more dual key. The West now says we will no longer stop air attacks if there are hostages taken; easy to say, hard to do. I understand it, but they have said it. The West is more united in taking a strong response. A rapid redeployment force is on the ground, and they are shooting back on the road to Sarajevo. So there is hope that a tougher, more effective policy among the western nations is in place. But last, I want to argue to you that lifting this embargo is not the moral thing to do. I want to lead you through what I believe, and more importantly, what experts on the ground believe, will happen if we lift this embargo. Mr. Chairman, the first thing that will happen, it has been said many times today, is that the U.N. forces will immediately want to come out. Are we committed by the word of the President of the United States that we will put 25,000 of our people on the ground to defend the Moslems? No. To conduct a retreat. I am told it may take 50,000 of our people for a retreat. Imagine explaining to the American people that your kid died in Bosnia to perform a retreat. It will be the biggest retreat since Dunkirk. Is that what we want to do? Mr. Chairman, the second thing that will happen is the Serbs will move. Do you think for a moment if this embargo is raised that they will not move faster than they are already moving? The Secretary of Defense told me this morning that all of the enclaves will go down. There is not a chance we will get there in time with arms to protect the enclaves. With the roads, with the ports being what they are, it would take 50 days to get arms in, much less train anybody to use them. The genocide that we are worried about will be increased if we adopt this policy. Mr. Chairman, I want to give credit to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] who feels so deeply and so morally with such great integrity about this issue, and all who think like him. But in his case, he has consistently said throughout that he not only wants to lift the embargo, he wants American troops, and a lot of them, on the ground. I respect him for that view. I even want to argue that if that is what we were deciding today, that that would not be a moral policy. We cannot bring about what we want to bring about, either by lifting the embargo or putting a lot of our people on the ground. Ladies and gentlemen, the answer in Bosnia has always been the same. We have to have a peace treaty. And even if you put 200,000 people on the ground and defeat the Serb army, when you leave, you will be back to what you are at today. There is no solution to this without getting peace. I end with this: A British official said it best. No language can describe adequately the condition of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the other provinces. The political intrigues, the constant rivalries, the hatred of all races, the animosities of rival religions, and absence of any controlling power, nothing short of any army of 50,000 of the best troops would produce anything like order in these parts. Mr. Chairman, Benjamin Disraeli, 117 years ago, uttered those words. It has not changed. What we need is peace, peace in this very troubled, troubled part of the world. I wish our force could bring it about. I do not think it will happen. What we must do is what the President and the West is trying to do, which is get these people back to the peace table and do everything in our power to bring about peace and end the genocide. That is the moral thing to do, and we must recommit ourselves today to do exactly that.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to add my voice to the gentleman from New York in saying that we will miss Keith Jewell as the House photographer very much. I know that all of us have had experience in his work. He has served this House and its membership loyally and with great effectiveness and efficiency, and, above it all, he has been a fine human being, a wonderful human being to be around. Mr. Speaker, all of us together wish him and his family well as he now moves into retirement and into a new phase of his career. We are sorry he is leaving but we wish him very, very well.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, we have got a pressing schedule next week. If the gentleman would like to stipulate that we win the game and you lose, we would be happy to do that. Then we would not even need to play.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Obviously, with this much business, I take it we could let Members predict that we would be here into the evening most evenings of next week.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I noted in his statement that the gentleman is planning at least tentatively to bring up the Bosnia legislation, S. 21, probably on Tuesday. I strongly hope, for what it is worth, that that is the case. We believe that this is obviously an important piece of legislation. We may or may not have an alternative, but we believe, even if we do not, that this legislation demands 4 or 5 hours of debate so that Members can be heard on it. It is of obvious importance for the country. Then on Tuesday, obviously, I would hope that the gentleman would go ahead with the Labor-HHS bill and try to bring it to a fairly reasonably speedy conclusion. We have been working with the minority, as the gentleman knows, in trying to figure out how to do that on that bill. Then the rest of the week could be given over to the telecommunications bill and would give it adequate time to be finished before the end of the week. If the Department of Defense appropriations bill could be figured out, that might also be able to be accomplished.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I have asked to proceed for 1 minute to inquire about the schedule for next week. I yield to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] to inquire about the schedule for the rest of today and next week.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I know how strongly the gentleman feels about that time and that date and how strongly all our colleagues feel about that time and that date. So we can safely predict without any qualification that we are going to leave on that time and that date; is that correct?

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I urge Members to vote for this Mollohan amendment. What we passed in the crime bill just a few months ago is working. It is working. We said we wanted 100,000 new police on the streets. Just 25 percent of those police are on the streets today. So a fourth of our goal only has been realized in terms of putting blue shirts on the streets. Mr. Chairman, I have been out with my community police that were hired under this program in the city of St. Louis. I have walked the precinct with them, I have seen the work that they are doing to prevent crime, to stop crime before it happens, which is what community policing is about, and guess what has happened in my city of St. Louis? The crime rate? Down by 2 percent. The murder rate? Down by 24 percent in St. Louis. The violent crime rate? Down by 11 percent in St. Louis with just a few months of this activity on the ground. I visited with the chiefs of police from all over the country in St. Louis last week, and they said to me, ``Surely, with the results that we're getting, the Congress is not going to take this money away that is targeted at police,'' and then they said, ``You know what will happen if we have a block grant. It will go to all kinds of things. It will get subverted by mayors and by other departments in city government and will be taken for things that don't count as much as the stoppage of crime that comes from police.'' Then we hear that in 25 cities across the country the violent-crime rate is down, the murder rate is down, the crime rate is down. Why in the world, with these statistics and these correlations that we are seeing, would we now stop what has already begun to work and go back to funding tanks, and funding bazookas and funding all kinds of crazy things? My colleagues, vote for this Mollohan amendment. Keep the money in blue shirts and keep the people of this country safe and secure.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the procedure, and I will be happy to handle our time. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that we have worn out this body with night after night meetings until 9 and 10 o'clock, and if your announcement means that without being able to get this unanimous-consent request we are going to sit here and grind through both amendments and vote through the night in order to get done, we are going to leave the Members totally exhausted and unable to come back here tomorrow and get the rest of the work done. We understand what you are trying to do, and we are trying to be helpful. Our Members on both sides, as you have said, have worked hard together to try to reach unanimous-consent agreements, and they have had a good deal of success. It is late. One of the reasons we are having trouble keeping the agreements coming is because people are getting short of temper. They are wearing out. With the greatest of respect, I suggest that we leave tonight and we come back tomorrow, maybe with a fresher attitude, and we try to go back to getting unanimous-consent requests and vote on the amendments as they come. You have every right in the world to say that we are going to meet on Friday, maybe to a later time. Maybe the Friday and Monday of next week that you asked for us to be off has to be taken away. But I think people would rather work in the daylight hours and into the early evening. Nine o'clock might be a time beyond which we should not go. And if you will do that I think you will finish your schedule.

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