[DOCID: f:sr485.110]
From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
Calendar No. 1056
110th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 110-485
======================================================================
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ACT OF 2008
_______
September 24 (legislative day, September 17), 2008.--Ordered to be
printed
_______
Mrs. Boxer, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 642]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred the bill (S. 642) to codify Executive Order 12898,
relating to environmental justice, and to require the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to fully
implement the recommendations of the Inspector General of the
Agency and the Comptroller General of the United States, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon and recommends the bill do pass.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION
The purpose of S. 642, The Environmental Justice Act of
2008 is to require the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to fully implement the recommendations of the
Inspector General of the Agency and the Comptroller General of
the United States, and for other purposes.
S. 642 would codify Executive Order 12898, titled,
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'', and eliminate the
Executive Order's limitation on judicial review. S. 642 would
also require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to fully implement the recommendations of the
Inspector General of the Agency and the Comptroller General of
the United States. S. 642 also contains a reporting requirement
for the Agency to ensure that it implemented the bill in a
timely and complete fashion.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
Background
Environmental justice focuses on the disparate impact of
environmental contamination on minorities and low income
people. Concerns over environmental justice were first raised
over 35 years ago. In 1971 the Council on Environmental
Quality's Second Annual Report to the President discussed
studies that documented the geographic relationship between
environmental pollution and minorities.
In 1982 Congress asked the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to conduct a study to determine if there was a
correlation between the location of hazardous waste landfills
and the racial and economic status of the surrounding
communities. GAO found that in southeastern states, three of
four commercial hazardous waste landfills were in communities
with more African Americans than whites. Also in 1982, protests
and lawsuits against the sitting of a toxic waste dump in
Warren County, NC helped to spur an environmental justice
movement.
A 1987 United Church of Christ Commission for Racial
Justice study, titled ``Toxic Wastes and Race,'' also found
that toxic dumps were often located near minority communities,
rather than just economically depressed areas. The study
defined ``environmental justice'' as the ``fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin or income with respect to the development,
implementation and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations and policies.'' In 2007, the United Church of
Christ updated their seminal study with the report, ``Toxic
Wastes and Race at Twenty: 1987-2007.'' This report finds that
there is an even higher likelihood that racial minorities
comprise the majority of individuals living in neighborhoods
within 1.8 miles of the nation's hazardous waste facilities.
By 1990, in response to the concerns of environmental
justice advocates, the George H.W. Bush Administration
established the Environmental Equity Work Group, which
eventually determined that ``racial minority and low-income
populations experience higher than average exposures to
selected air pollutants, hazardous waste facilities,
contaminated fish and agricultural pesticides in the
workplace.'' In 1992, the George H.W. Bush Administration
established the Office of Environmental Equity, now known as
the Office of Environmental Justice, at the EPA.
Legal remedies have been sought, using Section 601 of Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits government actions
that disparately impact one group of people, and section 602,
which requires federal agencies to implement regulations to
protect these rights. The Supreme Court's decision in Alexander
vs. Sandoval (2001) construed the law to not allow private
individuals and organizations to file suits alleging
``disparate impact'' discrimination under Section 602 of Title
VI. Disparate impact discrimination is unintentional
discrimination that adversely affects racial groups or other
protected classes. Now one must demonstrate intentional
discrimination, to prove a Civil Rights violation under Title
VI.
In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898:
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-income Populations.'' (E.O.) The E.O.
requires federal agencies with public health and environment
programs to comply with Title VI's requirements prohibiting
discrimination of race, color or national origin. States that
receive federal funds from covered agencies must use that money
in compliance with the E.O.
Independent bodies have criticized the EPA's failure to
fully implement the E.O. In 2004, EPA's Inspector General (IG)
issued a report that found the following:
<bullet> In 2001, EPA restated its commitment to
environmental justice by directing the agency to conduct its
programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect
human health and the environment in a manner that ensures the
fair treatment of all people, including minority and low-income
populations.
<bullet> EPA has not fully implemented the E.O. nor
consistently integrated environmental justice into its day-to-
day operations.
<bullet> In the absence of established environmental
justice definitions, criteria, or standards, regional and
program offices have taken inconsistent steps to implement
environmental justice policies, resulting in inconsistent
impacts.
The EPA disagreed with the IG findings and stood by its
interpretation of the E.O., which reiterated EPA's existing
responsibility to protect the public, and eliminated the
mandate to protect minority communities with a disproportionate
amount of environmental pollution.
In 2005, the GAO studied EPA's development of the Clean Air
Rules. In its report, it found that EPA devoted little
attention to environmental justice. It found the following:
<bullet> Initial reports to senior staff that should have
been used to ``flag'' environmental justice issues did not do
so;
<bullet> It was unclear if environmental justice provisions
were including in the early rule making process; and
<bullet> Reviews for the proposed gasoline and diesel rules
generally devoted little attention to environmental justice.
In 2006, the Inspector General of the EPA produced a report
indicating that the agency had failed to fully implement E.O.
12898, and had not sufficiently directed programs and regional
offices to conduct environmental reviews in accordance with the
E.O. The EPA is currently developing and piloting environmental
justice review protocols.
In 2005, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
Stephen Johnson released a memo entitled: ``Reaffirming the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Commitment to
Environmental Justice.'' In this memo, Administrator Johnson
defined ``environmental justice'' as ``justice for all people,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income.'' He
also argued that the Agency's efforts to focus on everyone, not
just those members of a minority group, are in line with
environmental justice.
Need for Legislation
The Committee believes that the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency should fully and quickly
implement Executive Order 12898: ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income
Populations.'' The Committee also believes that, given the
Administrator's repeated failure to fully implement the
Executive Order over a number of years, more accountability is
needed to ensure that the Administrator acts quickly and
decisively to address environmental justice problems.
The findings and recommendations of the independent bodies
that reported on the Agency's failure to appropriately
implement the Executive Order are extremely valuable. The U.S.
Government Accountability Office is an independent, nonpartisan
agency that works for Congress. The GAO supports Congress in
meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal
government for the benefit of the American people. The GAO
accomplishes these activities by promoting accountability,
integrity, and reliability. Their findings demonstrate a need
for the Administrator to integrate environmental justice
concerns early on and throughout the Agency's rulemaking
process.
The Agency's Inspector General independent office within
EPA that helps the Agency protect the environment and human
health. The Inspector General's report, which acts as the
Agency's watchdog, shows serious failure in the Agency's effort
to consistently implement the Environmental Justice Executive
Order. The Agency clearly needs more directions and
accountability to ensure that it quickly and completely
implements the Executive Order.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
S. 642 would codify Executive Order 12898: ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-income Populations.'' The bill also defines
key terms associated with this Order, and would eliminate the
Executive Order's limitation on judicial review.
The bill would require the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to implement various
recommendations from the Agency's Inspector General and the
Comptroller General of the United States. The independent
bodies' reports discussed the Agency's failure to appropriately
implement the Environmental Justice Executive Order in the
Agency's regulatory activities and programs. S. 642 also
contains a reporting requirement for the Agency to ensure that
it implemented the bill in a timely and complete fashion.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 establishes the short title of the Act as the
``Environmental Justice Act of 2008''.
Section 2. Codification of Executive Order 12898
Section 2 codifies Executive Order 12898: ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-income Populations.'' It also defines the terms
``environmental justice'' and ``fair treatment'', and
eliminates the Executive Order's limitation on judicial review.
Section 3. Implementation of recommendations by Environmental
Protection Agency
Section 3 requires the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to, as promptly as practicable, carry out
each of the recommendations of the EPA Inspector General report
number 2006-P-00034, entitled ``EPA Need to Conduct
Environmental Justice Reviews of its Programs, Policies, and
Activities.''
The section requires the Administrator to, as promptly as
practicable, carry out each of the recommendations of the
Comptroller General of the United States contained in report
number GAO-05-289, entitled ``EPA Should Devote More Attention
to Environmental Justice when Developing Clean Air Rules.''
The section requires the Administrator to, as promptly as
practicable, carry out each of the recommendations of the EPA
Inspector General report number 2004-P-00007, entitled ``EPA
Needs to Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive
Order on Environmental Justice.''
The section also requires the Administrator to submit a
report to Congress within six months of enactment of this act
on the Administrator's strategy for implementing each of the
recommendations in the three reports described above.
Thereafter, the Administrator is required to provide Congress
with a semi-annual report on EPA's progress in implementing
each recommendation, and on the EPA's progress on incorporating
environmental justice in the Agency's Incident Command
Structure.
Legislative History, Committee Views and Votes
VOTES
On July 31, 2008, the Environment and Public Works held a
business meeting where it considered S. 642. Senator Inhofe
offered an amendment to modify the bill's definition of ``fair
treatment.'' The Committee voted down the amendment 10-9, with
Senators Baucus, Cardin, Carper, Clinton, Klobuchar,
Lautenberg, Lieberman, Sanders, Whitehouse and Boxer voting
against adopting the amendment. Senators Alexander, Barrasso,
Bond, Craig, Isakson, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner and Inhofe
voted for the amendment.
On July 25, 2007, the Environment and Public Work's
Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health held an
oversight hearing on EPA's Environmental Justice Program.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee notes that the
Congressional Budget Office has found that ``according to EPA,
many of the activities required under this legislation are
already underway. . . . S. 642 contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.''
MANDATES ASSESSMENT
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the Committee notes that the Congressional
Budget Office has said that the bill ``contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on
state, local, or tribal governments.''
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
S. 642--Environmental Justice Act of 2007
S. 642 would require the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to fully implement certain recommendations made by EPA's
Inspector General and the Comptroller General of the United
States in various reports. Those recommendations include
requiring EPA to consider how its programs and policies affect
low-income and minority communities and to identify those
programs and policies that have a disproportionately large and
adverse health or environmental impact on such communities.
According to EPA, many of the activities required under
this legislation are already underway. CBO estimates, based on
information from EPA, that implementing this legislation would
increase costs by less than $500,000 annually over the 2009-
2013 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or
revenues.
S. 642 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susanne S.
Mehlman. This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
MINORITY VIEWS
Background
S. 642 would codify Executive Order 12898, and for the
first time in any federal law define the term ``environmental
justice''. Included within this overall definition of
environmental justice is the use of the word ``fair
treatment'', referring to the impacts on minorities and low
income communities. The bill fails to adequately define this
term, yet makes this highly interpretive term law, while
ignoring the cumulative factors of what is ``fair''. One of the
major problems with this legislation is that it attempts to
define the broad term of environmental justice with equally
broad terminology that requires its own definitions, such as
the use of ``fair treatment'' and ``disproportionate impacts''.
This bill fails to clearly define the meaning of these terms
which will undoubtedly cause inconsistent application and will
continue to ignore the cumulative factors and net socio-
economic benefits that should be considered in environmental
justice considerations.
The ambiguous use of the term ``environmental justice'' and
``fair treatment'' within this legislation and the unspecified
legal ramifications of codifying Executive Order 12898 will
lead to a proliferation of lawsuits on environmental justice
grounds, disrupt plans to revitalize economically depressed
areas, and deny communities the right to decide what is in its
own best interest. ``Community leaders should be concerned
about the health and safety of those who reside near
environmental hazards. Current federal civil rights law rightly
forbids policy-makers and other recipients of federal funds
from considering the ethnic or racial composition of a
neighborhood when making sitting, permitting or environmental
enforcement decisions. Environmental justice activists,
however, seek to create a federal civil rights claim every time
an environmental or public health problem impacts
minorities.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Of United States Commission on Civil Rights study: Not in My
Backyard, Executive Order 12898 and Title VI as Tools for Achieving
Environmental Justice, October 2003, Dissenting Views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns about the erroneous assumptions and duplication of
existing bureaucracy within S. 2549 prompted this September 22,
2008 letter to Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, from Peter Kirsanow, a
Commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights:
Aside from the unnecessary duplication of existing
programs and increased bureaucracy created by this
legislation, S. 642 and S. 2549 are particularly
troubling because they use civil rights
antidiscrimination law and policies as a vehicle for
resolving complex environmental and public health
issues. This legislation makes the same mistake of many
environmental activists in assuming that disparate
impact on a local population is evidence of intentional
discrimination by government agencies. Results of
studies on this issue inevitably depend upon numerous
variables, including the size of the study, the
definition of ``minority community,'' the aggregation
or disaggregation of urban and rural communities, and
control for income levels. The evidence of any
correlation between environmental hazards and race is
mixed at best, and there are a series of studies that
show, for example, no disproportionate racial impact in
environmental facility citing decisions.
This legislation is based on entirely erroneous
assumptions that also fail to recognize that many
minority communities have developed around existing
environmental sites because of lower housing costs,
increased employment opportunities, or both. Yet, the
background of these legislative proposals leave the
reader with the impression that environmental
``hazards'' have been thrust upon minority communities
specifically because they are minority communities--
that is a false presumption that lacks merit.
. . . The real concern in adopting S. 2549 and S. 642
is the elimination of limitations on judicial review.
Under Title VI, individuals are protected from
intentional discrimination. In the landmark case
Alexander v. Sandoval,\2\ the U.S. Supreme Court held
that Title VI provides no private right of action for
claims of disparate impact. In S. 2549, section 4(a)
directs the federal agencies involved to conduct every
program and evaluate every decision in the context of
disparate impact on an individual. This effectively
overturns Sandoval and will increase lawsuits, thwart
the revitalization of economically depressed areas and
deny communities the right to decide what is in their
own best interests.
\2\532 U.S. 275 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns about the consequences of codifying Executive
Order 12898 are not only shared by the legal and civil rights
community, but also shared by many groups. Below is an excerpt
from a letter sent to Members of Congress on September 19, 2008
from the United States Chamber of Commerce:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest
business federation representing more than three
million businesses and organizations of every size,
sector, and region, strongly opposes S. 642, the
``Environmental Justice Act of 2007,'' and S. 2549, the
``Environmental Justice Renewal Act'' which may be
offered as amendments to must-pass legislation during
the remaining days of the 110th Congress.
. . . In the years since President Clinton signed
Executive Order 12898, titled ``Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations,'' misguided environmental
justice activism has delayed or permanently derailed
countless projects and facilities that would have
brought significant economic development to minority
and low-income neighborhoods. The environmental justice
movement has been used to drive businesses from those
areas most in need of economic stimulus and, in the
process, operated as a disincentive for businesses to
locate in these needy areas. The grim reality is that
environmental justice, intended to sensitize policy-
makers to equitable environmental considerations, has
been used to harass businesses, prevent job creation,
and stifle economic development in the minority and
low-income areas.
S. 642 and S. 2549 would exacerbate the fundamental
problems inherent in environmental justice. For
example, Senator Durbin's bill would overturn the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Sandoval\3\ and codify
Executive Order 12898 except for the ban on judicial
review, which would create a private right of action
for environmental activists to sue government and
effectively block businesses from bringing economic
development to blighted regions. This outcome would be
particularly perverse in light of our current energy
crisis, as it would promote endless litigation on the
permitting of new energy facilities, such as nuclear
plants, oil refineries, and coal-fired power plants. .
. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\In Alexander v. Sandoval, 523 U.S. 275 (2001), the Supreme Court
considered held that there exists no private right of action to enforce
disparate-impact regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Both S. 642 and S. 2549 advance the failed
policies of the environmental justice movement. Rather
than injecting the benefits of economic development
into our national environmental policy discourse, these
bills offer activists the opportunity to prevent
businesses and communities from bringing jobs and
economic stimulus into the poorest communities in the
nation.
These complex and far-reaching bills deserve to be
carefully deliberated by Congress, not rushed through
the legislative process. Therefore, the U.S. Chamber
urges you to oppose any attempt to offer these bills as
amendments to important legislation.
There is insufficient evidence of disparate impact as negative
Studies on the demographic impact of industrial and
environmental decisions are mixed. They are based upon many
variables such as study size, minority community definitions
and varying income levels. Advocates of this legislation assume
findings which indicate racially disproportionate impacts are
correct without creating a consistent decision-making process.
This will lead to a single claim of the presence of
disproportionate impacts as proof-positive of discriminatory
intent. In addition, environmental justice claims will fail to
incorporate cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment;
sometimes the location of environmental hazards can be very
beneficial to the local communities. For example, ``increased
employment opportunities, increased social services made
possible by a larger tax base, and lower housing costs and real
estate prices'' are quite possible due to the selection of a
community for a project.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Dissenting Views of Commissioners of United States Commission on
Civil Rights study: Not in My Backyard, Executive Order 12,898 and
Title VI as Tools for Achieving Environmental Justice, October 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental and public health programs in minority communities are
generally not the result of racist-decision making
Health problems in minority communities are often the
result of a ``multitude of factors, including poverty,
substance abuse, family instability, poor nutrition, and low
participation rates in preventative care programs.'' The focus
on environmental justice detracts from the real public policy
solution: improving the health and safety of all communities,
while consistently enforcing existing environmental laws.
Antidiscrimination law is an improper legal application for addressing
environmental justice issues: Overturning Alexander v. Sandoval
(2001) is the wrong approach
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act appropriately forbids
intentional discrimination but S. 642 would go one step further
and utilize federal antidiscrimination law incorrectly as a
method of solving complex environmental problems. When
evaluating environmental justice claims using disparate impact
analysis, motive is irrelevant--policies are considered
``discriminatory'' simply because they have a disproportionate
adverse impact on a protected group.\5\ Although the disparate
impact model may provide a useful mode of analysis in some
areas of the law, the Supreme Court has cautioned that
disparate impact should not be applied reflexively to all areas
of antidiscrimination law.''\6\ Environmental justice activists
do not explain this model as meaningful in the public health
and environmental context, which needlessly forces
disadvantaged communities into a zero-sum game: deciding
between health and economic well-being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Dissenting Views of Commissioners of United States Commission on
Civil Rights study: Not in My Backyard, Executive Order 12,898 and
Title VI as Tools for Achieving Environmental Justice, October 2003.
\6\See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 246-48 (1976); see also
Jennifer C. Braceras, Killing the Messenger: The Misuse of Disparate
Impact Theory to Challenge High-stakes Educational Tests, 55 Vand. L.
Rev. 1111, 1142 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental justice actions at the Environmental Protection Agency
In the Fiscal Year 2008 House Appropriations Committee
Report 110-187, EPA was directed to address and implement where
needed the recommendations of the 2004 and 2006 EPA Inspector
General and 2005 GAO reports. In this, July 18, 2008 report EPA
states in part:
. . . As a result of strategic efforts and lessons
learned since the program began in 1992, the Agency has
made steady progress towards developing coherency and
cohesion in its environmental justice visions, goals,
expectations, performance measurement, and
comprehensive integration into Agency strategic
planning. In recent years, efforts to incorporate
environmental justice considerations into EPA's core
functions have accelerated partly in response to
recommendations in the Inspector General's (IG)
evaluation reports in 2004 and 2006, and the General
Accounting Office (GAO) report in 2005.
EPA has made tremendous strides to understand and to
integrate environmental justice into EPA's daily work.
Efforts extend across the Agency's core functions, as
reflected in EPA's Strategic Plan, National Program
Manager's (NPM) Guidance, Environmental Justice Action
Plans, program evaluation activities, and rulemaking
activities, as well as to training, collaborative
problem-solving efforts and disaster preparation and
response activities.
EPA is learning how to measure the EJ Program's
progress in a way that is accurate, meaningful, and
cognizant of the unique and complex issues of
environmental justice. EPA recognizes that it takes
time to build a community's capacity and to identify
the shared responsibilities of many levels of
government. By continuously improving the EJ Program,
the Agency can achieve the tangible results that make a
positive impact in the health of communities
disproportionately burdened by environmental hazards. .
. .
Since, 1992 The EPA has made a consistent, long-term,
agency-wide commitment to integrate environmental justice,
promote environmental justice to external stakeholders, and
provide financial assistance to address local environmental
and/or public health issues.
The EPA has identified eight priorities in this area:
1. Reduction in number of asthma attacks;
2. Reduce exposure to air toxics;
3. Safe fish/shellfish;
4. Clean and safe drinking water;
5. Revitalization of brownfields and contaminated
sites;
6. Reducing elevated blood lead levels;
7. Ensuring compliance;
8. Collaborative problem-solving to address
environmental justice issues.
Environmental justice is evidenced in each of the EPA's
strategic goals. For example, in Goal 1: Clean Air and Global
Climate Change, EPA set a target to reduce exposure to indoor
asthma triggers with a special emphasis on children and other
disproportionately impacted populations.
In Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water, EPA commits to providing
small community drinking water systems serving low-income
populations training and assistance in using cost-effective
treatment technologies, properly disposing of waste, and
complying with standards for high-priority contaminants.
In Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration, EPA
encourages broader use of improved sample collection
techniques, analytical tools, and indicators to better address
environmental justice concerns and identify areas that may
suffer disproportionate impacts.
In Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, EPA has
developed transparent, measurable, and accountable
environmental justice targets, such as reducing blood lead
levels in low-income children 1-5 years old, and achieving
significant environmental and public health improvement in
communities through collaborative problem-solving strategies.
The goals for the community collaborative problem solving
grants are measured in terms of the actions taken within areas
disproportionately and adversely burdened by environmental
risks and harms, and the improvements in environmental and
public health resulting from grants funded by EPA.
In Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship, EPA
emphasizes achieving results in all areas including those with
potential environmental justice concerns through compliance
assistance, compliance incentives, and monitoring and
enforcement.
These efforts have been enhanced by the creation of the
Environmental Justice Executive Steering Committee, which
directed each national program manager and Regional Office to
develop and maintain EJ Action Plans. In addition, an EJ review
process was established to improve the effectiveness of the EJ
programs. A training program was also created in order ensure
EPA staff take environmental justice concerns into
consideration when executing their tasks.
Conclusion
This bill would create a complex new process within all
Federal Agencies that will have far reaching negative legal
ramifications. The Minority would strongly oppose moving
forward with this bill, without the opportunity on the Senate
floor to offer amendments that address the problems with this
legislation. We strongly oppose attempts to move forward with
this legislation, as it makes complex changes to existing
environmental laws, absent the rigor of the full parliamentary
process.
James M. Inhofe.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate
requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made
by the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no
changes to existing law.
<all>