[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.

                          ____________________