Date: 1990-06-25
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. since 1970 Congress has enacted extensive environmental legislation directed toward the treatment and disposal of toxic wastes. There has also been substantial legislation designed to handle the cleanup of waste dumps and spills. While these are very important pieces of legislation. it is becoming clear to many in Government and industry. as well as to private individuals. that endofthepipe pollution controls are not enough. Enormous amounts of toxic waste continue to be released into the air. water. and land. despite stricter pollution controls and skyrocketing waste management costs. The Waste Reducation Act. the bill now before the House. heralds a new approach to preventing environmental pollution. While other legislation has focused on the treatment or disposal of waste that has already been created. this bill is aimed at reducing toxic waste at the sourcebefore it is generated: Mr. Speaker. there is increasing evidence of the enconomic and environmental benefits to be realized in reducing toxic industrial waste at the source rather than managing such waste after It is produced. In reports to Congress in 1986 and 1987. the Office of Technology Assessment projected that source reduction techniques using existing technology could reduce waste currently generated by as much as 50 percent over the next 5 years. Furthermore. OTA concluded that a modest Federal investment in waste reduction information collection and a grant program to the States for technical assistance to aid industry would more than pay for itself in a few years. Testimony received by our subcommittee showed that some companies have made substantial reductions in their toxic waste by implementing manufacturing process changes. raw material substitutions. and other available techniques. At the same time. factors inhibiting. the increased use of these kinds of source reduction techniques by other companies have little to do with technological constraints. economic costs. or governmental prohibitions. In fact. lack of awareness or lack of information was cited as the most common reason more companies do not practice source reduction. Many company managers simply are not aware of techniques that could be applied to their business operations. Industries and regulators are frequently so oriented toward meeting the requirements and deadlines of current pollution control regulations and statutes that they do not seek out innovative alternatives. To help remedy this problem. the Waste Reduction Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and implement a strategy to promote waste reduction at the source. The bill also directs EPA to establish a source reduction clearinghouse to compile information on approaches to source reduction and to facilitate the transfer of source reduction technology. to disseminate information on source reduction techniques. and to promote public education on the benefits of source reduction. In addition. the bill authorizes a program of matching grants to the States for waste reduction programs that promote the use of source reduction techniques by industry. Finally. the bill requires industrial generators of toxic chemicals to file annual reports on their source reduction and recycling activities. These reports allow the public to see just who is really doing something about preventing pollution. These are not regulatory provisions: The bill merely requires disclosure of the amount of toxic waste being reduced at the source or being recycled. Our experience has been that disclosure can be very effective in producing tangible results. It opens the door to making significant reductions in the amount of toxic waste generated in this country every year. Mr. Speaker. at a hearing our subcommittee held on this bill in May 1989. the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. William Reilly. stated that he supported the concepts embodied in this bill but that it ought to be expanded even further. Mr. Reilly stated that he expected EPA to submit its own pollution prevention legislation by July 1. 1989. Well. its been over a year now. and we still dont have his proposal. Mr. Speaker. pollution prevention wont wait. We must take the first steps to reduce the amount of toxic waste being generated now. I would like to thank Mr. Whittaker for the assistance and cooperation of the minority in bringing this bill to the floor. In addition. I would very much like to thank Mr. WOLPE for his tenacity and very hard work in getting the support necessary to press ahead with this important legislation. Mr. Speaker. this bill has more than 200 cosponsors in the House. A nearly identical bill was passed by the House in the last Congress. but the Senate was unable to pass It in the last few minutes of the final session. I urge my colleagues to act favorably once again on this important legislation so that it may become law this year. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.