[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS AND THE NATION OF ISLAM AND MR.
FARRAKHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Franks] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the
Congressional Black Caucus cannot tolerate me, a black Republican,
because of my conservative views, but would have such a difficult time
divorcing themselves from Mr. Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, a
group whose leaders would preach racism, hatred, and bigotry.
It was wrong for the Congressional Black Caucus to have engaged in a
so-called sacred covenant with this organization to begin with. The
Congressional Black Caucus is a taxpayer-supported legislative service
organization, and they should always have that in mind when they are
conducting their business.
Based on news reports, I see the Nation of Islam and the Ku Klux Klan
being somewhat similar. The Ku Klux Klan would hate blacks, Catholics,
and Jews, while the Nation of Islam would seem to hate whites,
Catholics, and Jews.
The Congressional Black Caucus has never rushed to embrace the Ku
Klux Klan, and they should not embrace the Nation of Islam.
I do not find Mr. Farrakhan's remarks today remorseful. On the
contrary, he states that he agrees with his assistant's beliefs but
disagrees with the way he expressed those beliefs.
I will continue to encourage the Congressional Black Caucus to
formally sever their ties with Mr. Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, by request
of the administration, its proposal to reauthorization the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act,
popularly known as Superfund. Joining with me in this effort as joint
sponsors are my distinguished colleagues. John Dingell, Chairman of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, Norm Mineta, Chairman of the
Committee on Public Works, and Transportation, Dan Rostenkowksi,
Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and Doug Applegate, Chairman
of the Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation we introduce today is the product of
consultations with both bodies of Congress, and extensive discussions
with Superfund stakeholders from industry, the environmental community,
State, and local governments and community groups. The advisory
committee process initiated by EPA last summer, as a part of the
National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology--known
as NACEPT--also played a major role in the development of this vitally
important legislation.
I commend the administration and EPA for encouraging a broad public
dialogue on Superfund and for undertaking such extensive outreach
efforts. These actions helped immeasurably in identifying the major
proposed solutions to those problems, and ultimately shaping the bill
we are introducing today.
I should note, however, that while these consultations and
discussions were extremely valuable, they were also very time
consumng--which places us now in a difficult position. With the very
little time remaining on the legislative calendar for this session, I
sincerely believe that any significant interest group can
singlehandedly kill this legislation simply by encouraging delay. But
at the same time, I do not believe it is in anyone's interest for that
to happen. Superfund is the program everyone loves to hate; all
stakeholders are agreed that this program is in urgent need of reform
and I am convinced that, if everyone comes to the table quickly and
negotiates in good faith, consensus can be reached on the legislative
changes that are required.
I believe the administration's bill represents a good beginning in
the effort to achieve Superfund reform because it sets forth a
reasonable middle ground on most of the issues. The bill is designed to
speed the pace of cleanup at sites, reduce transaction costs, provide
fairness in the allocation of shares of liability for cleanup, and
greatly expand public participation in the cleanup process, from the
initial listing of a site on the National Priorities List, through the
study phase and final remedy selection.
I will summarize some of the bill's major provisions.
The administration proposes to address concerns that the Superfund
remedy selection process has been too slow, too costly, and has
provided inconsistent and sometimes inadequate protection of human
health and the environment. The legislation would streamline the remedy
selection process by requiring EPA to promulgate national cleanup
levels for specific hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants
found at Superfund sites, which would provide consistent protection as
well as reflect reasonably anticipated future land uses. Further, the
proposal would require that the Federal and State cleanup standards
with which Superfund cleanups are required to comply be specifically
designed to apply to Superfund-type remedial actions. And the provision
of current law that establishes a preference for remedies that utilize
treatment technologies, which has been criticized for causing
goldplated cleanups in situations where treatment is not necessary for
protection of human health and the environment, would be tailored to
apply where it is needed most. Thus, the preference for treatment
applies to hot spots, areas of sites that are contaminated with
hazardous substances that are highly toxic, highly mobile, or would
present significant risk to human health or the environment should
exposures occur. Remedies that employ containment strategies would be
allowed for other, less contaminated areas of the site, where they
could provide equivalent protection.
With respect to the liability and enforcement provisions of the law,
the administration has proposed adoption of an allocation scheme, to
assign liability to all potentially responsible parties as early as
possible in the process. The allocation system is designed to
significantly reduce transaction costs, particularly by eliminating
much of the need for litigation, and achieve greater fairness for all
parties, particularly small businesses and other ``de minimis''
contributors to Superfund sites. Special provisions for municipalities
who contributed municipal solid waste to Superfund landfills, are also
included.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation also includes amendments designed to
improve the role of the States in the Superfund program, to strengthen
the law's health authorities, as well as other provisions too numerous
to go into here. Accordingly, I have attached a summary of the
administration Superfund proposal, prepared by EPA, as well as a copy
of the official executive communication from EPA Administrator to
Speaker Foley, transmitting the administration bill.
I look forward to working with the administration, and with all my
colleagues, to bring meaningful reform to the Superfund program this
year.
Summary of Administration Proposal
I. community involvement, public health & environmental justice
A. Community Involvement
Citizen Information and Access Office CIAO's will be
established in each State to serve as information
clearinghouses for all sites in the State.
Community Workgroups reflecting the racial, ethnic, and
economic makeup of the community will be established as
advisory bodies at Superfund sites.
Imput from these workgroups will be solicited at virtually
every stage of cleanup, particularly in determining the
future land use of the site for purposes of remedy selection.
Technical Assistance Grants TAG's will be broadened to
include the granting of services in addition to funds.
B. Health Benefits
ATSDR will conduct a 5-year study concerning health-related
benefits, e.g., health screening, medical care, at a selected
number of sites.
ATSDR may conduct human health studies of exposure on
certain individuals to determine the need for conducting
further full-scale studies.
C. Environmental Justice
EPA will consider cumulative risks from multiple sources
other than Superfund sites to affected communities when
setting priorities for site assessments.
EPA will develop methodologies for assessing the cumulative
risk from multiple sources, and will implement a 5-year
study, with demonstration projects, of cumulative risks from
multiple sources.
ii. state role
States with programs and authorities that are substantially
consistent with the Federal program will be able to apply to
EPA for authorization to carry out the full range of response
activities at all NPL sites, or categories of NPL sites,
within their borders.
States will also be able to seek site-specific referrals of
responsibilities--if the States' programs are substantially
consistent with the Federal program.
States with an authorized program and referred sites will
have access to the Trust Fund to carry out response
activities, subject to a fixed cost share for all Trust Fund
moneys spent in that State.
The NPL will be retained, but sites will be added to, and
deleted from, the NPL without rulemaking. States will
maintain a State Registry--a list of all NPL and non-NPL site
being addressed in the State by either EPA or the State
agency.
iii. voluntary response
A. Voluntary Response
EPA will promote State voluntary cleanups by providing
guidance and technical assistance to these programs.
EPA will allow a proposed or listed NPL site to be
addressed by a State voluntary cleanup program, up until the
RI/FS, if the State is either authorized for all sites or
meets the criteria for referral of the site.
The establishment of national cleanup levels and generic
remedies should also foster voluntary cleanups by reducing
the economic and legal uncertainties associated with
cleanups.
iv. remedy selection
A. Cleanup Standards
Remedy selection decisions will ensure protection of human
health and the environment, and provide consistent and
equivalent protection to all communities affected by sites.
To ensure consistent protection to all communities,
national goals will be promulgated to be applied to all
sites.
Based on these national goals, national generic cleanup
levels for specific hazardous substances will be developed
and implemented to reflect reasonably anticipated land uses,
based on community imput, and certain site-specific
variables.
A national risk protocol will also be established for the
purpose of conducting risk assessments, based on realistic
assumptions, where either no national generic cleanup level
has been developed or site-specific conditions warrant such
application.
Remedies will be required to comply with substantive
requirements of Federal law that are suitable for application
to the remedial action and more stringent
State requirements promulgated specifically to address
remedial actions, subject to a waiver in appropriate
situations.
B. The Remedy Selection Process
The concept of permanence will be replaced with long-term
reliability, and the preference for treatment will be limited
to hot spots.
The remedy selection process will be streamlined to
consider five factors, effectiveness, long-term reliability,
risk to the community, community acceptance, and
reasonableness of the cost, in selecting a remedy and generic
remedies for categories of sites. Communities will be
provided with early, direct, and meaningful involvement
throughout the remedial process.
National generic remedies will be established for
categories of facilities to streamline the remedy selection
process.
The time and dollar limits for removal actions will be
increased from 1 year to 3 years, and from 2 million to 6
million, respectively.
iv. liability and allocations
A. Allocation System
At every multi-party NPL site where EPA takes remedial
action, an allocation process will be conducted by a neutral
professional with Superfund expertise to recommend a share of
responsibility for each identified PRP.
PRPs will be offered the opportunity to settle based on the
allocation and, upon payment of a premium for having the
United States pursue nonsettlors, obtain protection against
future liability. Parties will be able to obtain a complete
release from liability upon payment of an additional premium
to cover risk of an incomplete response, remedy failure, and
unknown conditions.
The United States will provide funding up to 300 million
per year to cover the orphan share attributable to nonviable
parties; shares that the allocator cannot attribute to any
identified, known party will be distributed among the parties
subject to the allocation.
To reduce ongoing contribution litigation, and associated
private party transaction costs, the United States will bear
the burden of pursuing nonsettlors to require cleanup, compel
payment of all unrecoverd expenditures, including the orphan
share.
B. Special Treatment Parties
Small volume waste contributors, de minimis parties,
generators and transporters of MSW, and parties with a
limited ability to pay will be eligible for early
settlement--including a full release and contribution
protection--prior to the allocation process.
If the allocation process indicates that the United States
settled with either MSW generators and transporters or
inability-to-pay parties for less than their allocated share,
the United States will fund the difference under the orphan
share.
The aggregate liability of MSW generators and transporters
at a site will be capped at 10 percent.
Owners and operators of MSW landfills would be eligible for
special inability-to-pay settlements.
``De micromis'' contributors of less than either 500 pounds
of MSW will be exempt from liability and receive protection
from contribution litigation; ``de micromis'' contributors of
less than 10 pounds or liters of hazardous substances will
also be exempt unless their contribution significantly
affected the cost of cleanup.
EPA will also provide an exemption from liability for
prospective purchasers of contaminated properties, so long as
they did not worsen the contamination and have either agreed
to clean it up or allow government access to do so.
C. Federal Agency Liability
Federal agencies will be relieved of Section 107 liability
and Section 120 obligations to perform remedial action and
enter into interagency agreements if (a) the release occurred
before the Federal agency had the ability to regulate or
control the release; (b) the Federal agency did not cause or
contribute to the release; and (c) there is a liable party
capable of performing the response action.
vi. miscellaneous
A. Innovative Technologies
EPA will encourage the development and application of
innovative technologies by sharing in some of the risks
associated with trying these technologies.
If the pre-approved application of an innovative technology
fails to meet the required cleanup levels, EPA will use the
Fund to pay for a portion of the back-up remedy.
B. Federal Property Transfer
Impediments to the transfer of Federal lands will be
greatly reduced (1) by allowing Federal agencies to enter
into agreements with future owners, with the intent to
transfer the property by deed after remediation has been
completed, and (2) by deleting the term stored for one year
or more, which allows a Federal agency to identify property
that is eligible for transfer where storage, but no release,
has occurred.
vii. Insurance
A new Environmental Insurance Settlement Fund will be
established to promote the settlement of insurance claims
related to Superfund liability for pre-1986 waste disposal.
Eligible parties, i.e., those who have been named as a PRP
and who meet an insurance coverage test, will be able to
resolve their insurance claims for response costs, natural
resource restoration costs, and defense costs. A State
percentage formula will be used to determine the insured's
recovery.
The new fund will be established by the IRS and financed by
a fee on property and casualty insurance companies.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, February 2, 1994.
Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to transmit to you the
Clinton Administration's proposed ``Superfund Reform Act of
1994.''
This reform initiative fulfills the Clinton
Administration's commitment to protecting human health and
the environment and to making Superfund cleanups faster,
fairer and more efficient. It will change the way we do
business in the Superfund program and sets a standard for
environmental legislation.
The legislation which would amend the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), was developed through a lengthy process that
capitalized on the expertise of the many Superfund
stakeholders--both inside and outside of government.
EPA staff have worked for the past two years developing
ideas and proposals for Superfund reform. These proposals
were reviewed by an interagency policy committee comprised of
senior officials from interested agencies that examined the
program and made recommendations for change.
I convened a subcommittee of the National Advisory Council
on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) to identify
administrative and legislative improvements in the Superfund
program. The NACEPT subcommittee was comprised of
representatives from environmental groups, small and large
businesses, municipalities, states, the environmental justice
community, and the hazardous waste cleanup industry.
The National Commission on Superfund, under the aegis of
The Keystone Center and the Environmental Law Center of the
Vermont Law School, made public its findings and
recommendations. Since that time, the Administration has
striven to develop a proposal that profits from the expertise
and dialogue of all of these groups and interests.
We believe that the ``Superfund Reform Act of 1994'' will
achieve the Clinton Administration's goals of protecting
human health and the environment; of reducing cleanup costs
and transaction costs; of fully involving communities; of
enhancing states' authorities; of stimulating economic
redevelopment; and of encouraging advances in science and
technology.
Title I, ``Community Participation and Human Health,''
establishes community workgroups as advisory bodies at
Superfund sites and expands the grant awards to communities.
It provides that communities suffering disproportionate risks
are eligible for environmental justice grants to analyze
aggregate risk and response activities. Further, it creates
citizen information and access offices in each state to serve
as information clearinghouses on the status of and plans for
state sites.
Title II, ``State Roles,'' offers states the opportunity to
assume a larger role in cleanup of sites and gives states
access to federal funds to carry out cleanup actions.
Title III, ``Voluntary Response,'' establishes a program to
assist states in establishing or expanding voluntary cleanup
programs.
Title IV, ``Liability and Allocation,'' provides exemptions
for de micromis (or truly tiny) contributors of waste and
expedited settlement for de minimis parties. It limits the
liability of municipal solid waste generators and
transporters and provides protection for lenders and
trustees. Finally, it establishes a cost allocation process
by a neutral professional that will substantially curtail
litigation.
Title V, ``Remedy Selection,'' reduces cleanup costs by
calling for national clean-up levels for contaminants
typically found at sites. It provides generic remedies to
speed cleanup time, and it replaces the preference and
treatment with the concept of long-term reliability.
Title VI, ``Miscellaneous,'' contains conforming
amendments, definitions and other miscellaneous provisions
amending CERCLA.
Title VII, ``Funding,'' provides amendments regarding
authorizations for appropriations and limits on funding.
Title VIII, ``Environmental Insurance Resolution Fund,''
establishes the Environmental Insurance Resolution Fund to
resolve disputes between insurers and insureds arising under
CERCLA. This provision was proposed by members of the
insurance and ``potentially responsible party'' community.
Title IX, ``Tax,'' amends provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code.
Although provisions concerning improvement to the natural
resource damage assessment process are not included in this
bill, the Administration is committed to such improvements.
The Administration is in the process of evaluating and
developing recommendations on these issues and will be
providing them at the appropriate time. In addition, the
Administration is still in the process of working with
insurers and insureds to develop legislative provisions for
the tax portions of the Environmental Insurance Resolution
Fund. We are transmitting with the bill legislative
specifications for these provisions and will be providing the
legislative language to the Congress in the near future.
We recommend that this proposal be referred to the
appropriate Committees and be passed into law.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA), as amended,
requires that all revenue and direct spending legislation
meet a pay-as-you-go requirement through fiscal year 1998.
That is, no such bill should result in an increase in the
deficit; and if it does, it will trigger a sequester if it is
not fully offset. The effect of the Superfund Reform Act of
1994 would be to decrease the deficit for fiscal years 1995-
1999. Considered alone, the bill meets the pay-as-you-go
requirement of OBRA.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that enactment
of this legislative proposal would be in accordance with the
program of the President.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner.
____________________