I'd like to keep my remarks brief, but I want to share with the Committee my reasoning and interest in this issue. I introduced the legislation because of an ongoing battle between the citizens of a Denver neighborhood and the EPA concerning the Shattuck Superfund site. Only through the work of the Ombudsman's office, did the truth finally become known.
The story surrounding the Shattuck site in the Overland Park neighborhood in southwest Denver and what the EPA did to this community will have a lasting impact not only on the residents of the Overland Park neighborhood, but on each and every one of us who looks to the EPA to be the guardian of our nation's environmental health and safety. In 1997, after several years of EPA stonewalling, the residents of Overland Park in Denver brought their concerns about a Superfund site in their neighborhood and their frustrations with the EPA to my attention. I learned that the neighborhood had run into a wall of bureaucracy that was unresponsive to the very public it is charged with protecting and I requested the Ombudsman's intervention. In early 1999, the Ombudsman's office began an investigation and quickly determined that the claims made by residents were not only meritorious, but that EPA officials had engaged in an effort to keep documents hidden from the public thereby placing their health in danger.
The Shattuck saga has been a frustrating and often disheartening experience for all involved. It is an example of what can happen when a government entity goes unchecked. For the residents of Denver, the Office of Ombudsman afforded the only opportunity to reveal the truth, and for the health and safety of the public to be given proper priority. In fact, the Ombudsman was so successful at uncovering the facts surrounding Shattuck, his investigation has resulted in EPA officials now looking at restructuring his office so that its actions may be restricted, and its independence compromised. In essence, I fear that the EPA may be moving to gut the Ombudsman's office. In effect, this means that the EPA's actions and decisions in future cases like Shattuck, may go unchecked and citizens in other states may not have a public avenue to address concerns and get answers from the EPA. Mr Chairman, this cannot be allowed to happen.
Without the Ombudsman's investigation on Shattuck, the residents of Overland Park would have never learned the truth. The Ombudsman's investigation brought integrity back into the process. Without the Ombudsman's work, a trusted federal agency would have been able to successfully hide the truth from the very people it is charged to protect. The Shattuck issue is a decade long example of why citizens' trust in their government has waned. My bill will preserve the only mechanism within the EPA that the public can trust to protect their health and safety.
I am not alone in my concerns and the Shattuck case is not unique. Many of my fellow Senators and Representatives have experienced similar battles with the EPA in their states. There is companion legislation in the House. I would also like to point out to the Committee that the Project on Government Oversight, an independent government watchdog organization, has submitted written testimony in which they cite many other examples of EPA interference in Ombudsman inquiries of other Superfund cases. I would like to ask that this testimony be included into the record.
Let me make it clear that my main priority in introducing this bill, is to keep the EPA Ombudsman Office open for business. I want to make sure that the EPA doesn't pull the plug on this office. God only knows what would have happened at Shattuck without it. I believe that in the future, my colleagues may find themselves in a similar situation and I want to make sure that they have every assurance that the public's safety is protected, that its voice is heard, that its questions are answered and that its concerns are addressed.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.