In fact, as just about everyone involved in the Superfund program agrees, there have been major strides made in the number and pace of the sites being cleaned up.
In fact, in the 103rd Congress, the critics of Superfund raised a number of issues. They asserted that it was too slow, that not enough cleanups were taking place, that there was too much litigation.
Back then, we were seeking solutions which would make the program faster, streamline cleanups, treat parties more fairly and get the little guys out earlier, all while keeping those responsible for the problem also responsible for cleaning it up. This was all within the general goals of achieving more cleanups and therefore providing better protection of human health and the environment.
I am proud of those proposals, and many of us still on this Committee, including the Chairman, who voted for that bill way back in the 103rd Congress should also be proud. Those proposals, although never enacted into law, were adopted administratively by EPA and radically altered the Superfund Program as we know it.
Others have been tested and been improved upon. In general the thrust of this well intentioned bill has resulted in many of the achievements of the current program.
According to a report issued by the General Accounting Office, by the end of this fiscal year all cleanup remedies will have been selected for 95 percent of non-federal NPL sites (1,109 of 1,169 sites).
In addition, approximately 990 NPL sites have final cleanup plans approved, approximately 5,600 "emergency removal" actions have been taken at hazardous waste sites to stabilize dangerous situations and to reduce the threat to human health and the environment.
More than 30,900 sites have been removed from the Superfund inventory of potential waste sites, to help promote the economic redevelopment of these properties.
During this same time, EPA has worked to improve the fairness and efficiency of the enforcement program, even while keeping up the participation of potentially responsible parties in cleaning up their sites.
EPA has negotiated more than 400 de minimis settlements with over 10,000 small parties, which gave protection for these parties against expensive contribution suits brought by other private parties. 66 percent of these have been in the last four years alone. Since fiscal year 1996, EPA has offered "orphan share" compensation of over $145 million at 72 sites to responsible parties who were willing to step up and negotiate settlements of their cases. EPA is now offering this at every single settlement, to reward settlers and reduce litigation, both with the government, and with other private parties.
These are just a few highlights of the improvements made in the program, many drawn from our earlier legislative proposals. Other improvements, such as instituting the targeted review of complex and high-cost cleanups, prior to remedy selection, have reduced the cost of cleanups without delaying the pace of cleanups.
In short, EPA's administrative reforms have significantly improved the program, by speeding up cleanups and reducing senseless litigation, and making the program fairer, faster and more efficient overall.
But despite the fact that this is a program that has finally really hit its stride, we are now faced with proposals from the Majority which could undercut the progress in the program, and which are premised on a goal of closing down the program rather than a goal of cleaning up the sites.
I am deeply troubled by many of the provisions in the Republican bill, which would have the effect of ramping the program down without regard to the amount of site work left to be done.
This bill provides for lowered funding levels, a cap on the NPL, waivers of the federal safety net, and some broad liability exemptions.
At the same time, it creates a number of new, expensive obligations which would further reduce the amount of money available for cleanup. It also shifts the costs of the program to the taxpayers and would not include an extension of the Superfund tax.
In short, while I am encouraged by the fact that the Republican bill drops some troubling provisions from prior bills, it introduces a whole set of new issues that we cause for great concern.
I think it is very clear that what we need here is a better Superfund program, not a retreat from tackling our environmental problems.
We need a bill that continues to accelerate the pace of cleanups, keeps cleanups protective, reduces litigation and transaction costs, is affordable and does not shift costs to the American taxpayer.
Yesterday, with some of my colleagues, I introduced such a bill. believe that this bill, is in some areas very close to the provisions supported by my Republican colleagues, but differs in some critical areas. It would protect cleanups, reduce litigation and not shift costs to the American taxpayer.
I hope that these are goals we can agree on. And I urge my colleagues to not throw the Superfund baby out with the bathwater.
I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.