WASHINGTON -- For the second time in less than a year, House Republicans have crafted an environmental proposal that would significantly jeopardize public health and safety in the United States, according to Rep. James L. Oberstar, Ranking Democratic Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

"Earlier this year, House Republicans offered up legislation to gut the Clean Water Act, the most successful environmental law on the books in the United States. Their proposal was properly received across the Nation as an attack on American health and safety, and that legislation is thankfully going nowhere. But on Wednesday night, our Republican colleagues offered up a second-helping of waivers, exemptions and loopholes for special interests under the guise of reforming the Superfund, which was designed to clean up toxic waste dumps throughout the country. One can only wonder if they will ever learn that you can't fool the American people when it comes to their health and the health of their communities," said Oberstar.

"Just about everyone agrees that the Superfund must be reformed to speed the clean-up of toxic waste. But you don't speed the clean-up of toxic waste by creating a polluter's entitlement at the public's expense or by encouraging more lawsuits. What they have proposed is a prescription for fences and guard dogs, not clean-up. It is a promissory note for bottled water to replace groundwater contaminated by letting industrial waste stay put. This bill is not about how much clean-up will take place, but how little -- and it is a lawyer's dream come true," Oberstar continued.

The Superfund, created under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act in 1980, is the Federal trust fund to pay those costs of toxic waste clean-up which could not be recovered from the parties directly responsible for the pollution. Mismanagement during the Reagan Administration rendered the Superfund ineffective to the point of requiring congressional amendment in 1986.

"In the summer and fall of 1994, Democratic Members of the House led a bipartisan effort to reform the Superfund further. There was a consensus that the Federal effort to clean up toxic waste sites was not as effective as it should be. There was a further consensus in the House on how to go about improving it. Legislation was reported with overwhelming bipartisan support from both the Energy & Commerce and Public Works & Transportation committees. The legislation had the support of the Clinton Administration and a broad spectrum of the American public and the affected business communities," Oberstar asserted.

"Unfortunately, as news reports documented, the legislation was killed by the Republicans amid pre-election partisan politics. However, this same measure was reintroduced on the first day of the 104th Congress as H.R. 228 to give the House the opportunity to pick up where it had left off. Finally, in the summer and fall of 1995, the Republicans returned to the issue only to focus on shifting the financial burden of clean-up away from polluters and towards the American public," Oberstar concluded. (MORE)

Rollback of health protection in H.R. 2500

 
• The Republican bill emphasizes quick fixes and the lowest cost, which usually means containment efforts and not clean-up. The bill inadequately considers the needs of sensitive populations such as children and expectant mothers. In evaluating clean-up options, the bill discounts long-term reliability.

 
• The Republican bill proposes a rebate for polluters in the form of a liability discount, at taxpayer expense. Liability is also reduced for damage polluters cause to natural resources, thereby passing along millions of dollars in losses to taxpayers.

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
• The Republican bill encourages more lawsuits than the present and intolerably high number of court cases. Pre-enforcement judicial review called for in the legislation would stop clean-ups until court action was concluded. Clean-up decisions at more than 700 sites will need to be revisited.
• Lower definitions of risk would discourage clean-up and encourage superficial containment without providing long-term protection. There would be an upper limit on the number of Superfund sites nationally, regardless of whether more sites exist in reality.

 
• The Republican bill transfers responsibilities to the states without the money to meet those responsibilities. The changes in liability law will also mean that the states could expect to recover less from polluters at Superfund sites. The bill also pre-empts related state laws enacted to protect public health from toxic waste, saying that Washington, DC knows best.

 
• The Republican bill hurts responsible companies which have spent billions of dollars on clean-up, while rewarding recalcitrants with rebates. Waivers, exemptions and loopholes are included for oil, mining, and other special interests.