By Allan Freedman, CQ Staff Writer
Efforts in the House to rewrite the superfund hazardous waste cleanup law continue to be hampered by partisan finger-pointing.
When Democrats on March 19 unveiled "brownfields" legislation to clean up and redevelop polluted industrial sites, Republicans rebuked them for undercutting bipartisan negotiations.
The jockeying for position by both parties was typical of the stalled efforts to rewrite superfund legislation. And it did not increase the odds that Republicans would embrace an approach favored by Democrats -- to move forward on a stand-alone brownfields bill.
Formal bipartisan House staff negotiations on superfund had begun for the first time in this Congress on March 18. But Republicans were piqued to learn that Democrats planned to unveil their brownfields bill (HR1120) the very next day, without consulting with the GOP.
That prompted a rhetorical slap from House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas J. Bliley Jr., R-Va. "This isn't a serious legislative effort. It's a photo op," said Bliley. "They care more about politics than toxic waste cleanups."
Another barbed attack on the Democrats came from Republican Sherwood Boehlert of New York, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over superfund. The Democrats, he said, settled "into a sealed room" and proceeded without Republicans.
The dispute primarily is over legislative strategy.
Many Republicans in both the House and Senate support brownfields legislation that would provide tax incentives and liability protection for businesses that relocate on former industrial sites that are polluted but not seriously enough to be placed on the superfund cleanup list.
But the GOP members are insisting on including it in broader legislation to revamp superfund. They believe that subsuming popular brownfields legislation in a superfund bill will keep the pressure on for an overall deal.
Since many brownfields sites are in urban areas represented by Democrats, GOP members believe they have leverage.
"We are four-square for a brownfields bill, but we want to make clear that should be in the context of a superfund bill," said Republican Michael G.Oxley of Ohio, the chairman of the House Commerce subcommittee with jurisdiction over superfund. "Realistically, the driving engine for Democrats is the brownfields bill. That's what brings the Democrats to the table."
In addition to the political rationale, Oxley said there are policy reasons to include brownfields in a broader superfund bill, since both issues deal with liability for cleanup costs.
DEMOCRATIC TACTICS
But Democrats insist that Republicans are playing politics by blocking a brownfields proposal that commands broad bipartisan support, even as superfund talks are mired in disagreement. "It is time to stop holding our communities hostage to inside-the-Beltway politics," said John D. Dingell of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on House Commerce.
In unveiling their brownfields legislation, Democrats left little doubt that they were staking out a political position. Their news conference was headlined by House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., and Carol M. Browner, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and attended by rank-and-file Democrats.
Browner called HR1120 "an important step toward restoring hope, opportunity and jobs" to communities burdened with tainted industrial sites. She said the administration also supports a brownfields bill (S18) proposed by Senate Democrats.
While Gephardt urged Republicans to "work with us to pass this legislation quickly," he did not hesitate to criticize the Republicans' approach to revamping the superfund law.
Republicans favor liability exemptions for businesses, including a repeal of the superfund law's "retroactive liability" provision, which can hold a business responsible for costs of cleaning up waste it dumped legally before superfund was enacted in 1980. They say altering superfund liability would speed cleanups and reduce litigation.
But Gephardt reaffirmed Democratic opposition to easing the liability provisions, saying that would violate a key principle of the superfund statute -- that the "polluter should pay."
"We won't allow them to shift the multibillion-dollar cleanup tab from polluters to taxpayers and the states," Gephardt said.
KEY DIFFERENCES
While they are not as spoiled by toxic wastes as superfund sites are, "brownfields" nonetheless make developers wary because of the potential for environmental lawsuits and claims by individuals that they were injured by pollution from the sites.
Both Democrats and Republicans embrace the concept of reducing potential financial liability to encourage businesses to purchase the sites. Both parties also support providing millions of dollars in grants to help states and localities encourage development.
But there are key differences in the three major brownfields proposals on the table: S18, the Senate Democratic bill; S8, the Senate Republicans' superfund bill, which includes brownfields provisions; and HR1120.
Both S8 and HR1120 would move to absolve brownfields sellers and purchasers of superfund liability.
The House bill, however, would outline clear exceptions that would allow the EPA to recover cleanup costs if additional contamination is found after the property has been certified as clean by the state in which it is located. These would include cases in which a site posed an imminent danger.
In contrast, S18 would not go as far as the other bills, shielding purchasers only from liability for cleanup costs as long as they adhered to guidelines such as not contributing to contamination.
© 1997 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All rights reserved.
Updated 3/25/97