[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H943-H947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             LAND DISPOSAL PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1995

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2036) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to make certain 
adjustments in the land disposal program to provide needed flexibility, 
and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2036

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Land Disposal Program 
     Flexibility Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. LAND DISPOSAL BAN.

       Section 3004(g) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6924(g)) is amended by adding the following after paragraph 
     (6):
       ``(7) Solid waste identified as hazardous based on one or 
     more characteristics alone shall not be subject to this 
     subsection, any prohibitions under subsection (d), (e), or 
     (f), or any requirement (other than any applicable specific 
     method of treatment) promulgated under subsection (m) if such 
     waste--
       ``(A)(i) is managed in a treatment system which 
     subsequently discharges to waters of the United States 
     pursuant to a permit issued under section 402 of the Clean 
     Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342); (ii) treated for the purposes of 
     the pretreatment requirements of section 307 of the Clean 
     Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1317); (iii) or managed in a zero 
     discharge system that, prior to any permanent land disposal, 
     engages in Clean Water Act-equivalent treatment as determined 
     by the Administrator;
       ``(B) no longer exhibits a hazardous characteristic prior 
     to management in any land-based solid waste management unit;
       ``(C) has met any applicable specific method of treatment 
     promulgated by the Administrator under section 3004(m) (42 
     U.S.C. 6924(m)); and
       ``(D) would not generate toxic gases, vapors, or fumes due 
     to the presence of cyanide at the point of generation when 
     exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5.
       ``(8) Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of 
     this paragraph, the Administrator shall complete a study of 
     hazardous wastes managed pursuant to paragraph (7) to 
     characterize the risks of human health or the environment 
     associated with such management. In conducting the study, the 
     Administrator shall evaluate the extent to which the risks 
     are adequately addressed under existing State or Federal 
     programs and whether unaddressed risks could be better 
     addressed under such Federal laws or programs. Upon 
     completion of such study or upon receipt of additional 
     information, and as necessary to protect human health and the 
     environment, the Administrator may, after notice and 
     opportunity for comment, impose additional requirements, 
     including requirements under section 3004(m)(1) or defer 
     management of such wastes to other State or Federal programs 
     or authorities. Compliance with any treatment standards 
     promulgated pursuant to section 3004(m)(1) may be determined 
     either prior to management in, or after discharge from, a 
     land-based unit as part of a treatment system specified in 
     subparagraph (A) of paragraph (7). Nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to modify, supplement, or 
     otherwise affect the application or authority of any other 
     Federal law or the standards applicable under any other 
     Federal law.
       ``(9) Solid waste identified as hazardous based on one or 
     more characteristics alone shall not be subject to this 
     subsection, any prohibition under subsection (d), (e), or 
     (f), or any requirement promulgated under subsection (m) of 
     this section if the waste no longer exhibits a hazardous 
     characteristic at the point of injection in any Class I 
     injunction well regulated under section 1422 of title XIV of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300h-1).''.

     SEC. 3. GROUND WATER MONITORING.

       (a) Amendment of Solid Waste Disposal Act.--Section 4010(c) 
     of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6949a(c)) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``Criteria.--Not later'' and inserting the 
     following: ``Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later''.
       (2) By adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Additional revisions.--Subject to paragraph (3), the 
     requirements of the criteria described in paragraph (1) 
     relating to ground water monitoring shall not apply to an 
     owner or operator of a new municipal solid waste landfill 
     unit, an existing municipal solid waste landfill unit, or a 
     lateral expansion of a municipal solid waste landfill unit, 
     that disposes of less than 20 tons of municipal solid waste 
     daily, based on an annual average, if--
       ``(A) there is no evidence of ground water contamination 
     from the municipal solid waste landfill unit or expansion; 
     and
       ``(B) the municipal solid waste landfill unit or expansion 
     serves--
       ``(i) a community that experiences an annual interruption 
     of at least 3 consecutive months of surface transportation 
     that prevent access to a regional waste management facility; 
     or
       ``(ii) a community that has no practicable waste management 
     alternative and the landfill unit is located in an area that 
     annually receives less than or equal to 25 inches of 
     precipitation.
       ``(3) Protection of ground water resources.--
       ``(A) Monitoring requirement.--A State may require ground 
     water monitoring of a solid waste landfill unit that would 
     otherwise be exempt under paragraph (2) if necessary to 
     protect ground water resources and ensure compliance with a 
     State ground water protection plan, where applicable.
       ``(B) Methods.--If a State requires ground water monitoring 
     of a solid waste landfill 

[[Page H944]]
     unit under subparagraph (A), the State may allow the use of a method 
     other than the use of ground water monitoring wells to detect 
     a release of contamination from the unit.
       ``(C) Corrective action.--If a State finds a relase from a 
     solid waste landfill unit, the State shall require corrective 
     action as appropriate.
       ``(4) No-migration exemption.--
       ``(A) In general.--Ground water monitoring requirements may 
     be suspended by the Director of an approved State for a 
     landfill operator if the operator demonstrates that there is 
     no potential for migration of hazardous constituents from the 
     unit to the uppermost aquifer during the active life of the 
     unit and the post-closure care period.
       ``(B) Certification.--A demonstration under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be certified by a qualified ground-water scientist 
     and approved by the Director of an approved State.
       ``(C) Guidance.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall issue a 
     guidance document to facilitate small community use of the no 
     migration exemption under this paragraph.''.
       (b) Reinstatement of Regulatory Exemption.--It is he intent 
     of section 4010(c)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 
     added by subsection (a), to immediately reinstate subpart E 
     of part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
     added by the final rule published at 56 Federal Register 
     50798 on October 9, 1991.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT.

       The Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended as follows:
       (1) In section 3001(d)(5) by striking ``under section 
     3001'' and inserting ``under this section''.
       (2) By inserting a semicolon at the end of section 
     3004(q)(1)(C).
       (3) In section 3004(g), by striking ``subparagraph (A) 
     through (C)'' in paragraph (5) and inserting ``subparagraphs 
     (A) through (C)''.
       (4) In section 3004(r)(2)(C), by striking ``petroleum-
     derived'' and inserting ``petroleum-derived''.
       (5) In section 3004(r)(3) by inserting after ``Standard'' 
     the word ``Industrial''.
       (6) In section 3005(a), by striking ``polycholorinated'' 
     and inserting ``polychlorinated''.
       (7) In section 3005(e)(1), by inserting a comma at the end 
     of subparagraph (C).
       (8) In section 4007(a), by striking ``4003'' in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2)(A) and inserting ``4003(a)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] will be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2036, the Land Disposal 
Flexibility Act of 1995.
  During the 104th Congress, the Commerce Committee and the House have 
taken the initiative in trying to reform our regulatory programs. We 
need to ensure that the risks that are addressed are realistic and 
significant and that the costs of regulations are reasonably related to 
their benefits. H.R. 2036 is a perfect example of the type of realism 
we need more of.
  H.R. 2036, addresses two rulemakings in which EPA tried to use 
principles of sound risk management but were prevented by the courts 
from doing so. Unfortunately, the current law, as interpreted by the 
courts, does not allow for a reasonable set of regulations.
  EPA has already performed cost and benefit analyses on the land 
disposal restrictions rule and the groundwater monitoring rule for 
landfills that are the topic of H.R. 2036. In its own analyses of the 
proposed rule on land disposal restrictions, EPA has stated that ``the 
risks addressed by this rule * * * are very small relative to the risks 
presented by other environmental conditions or situations.'' In both of 
the land disposal restrictions and groundwater monitoring rules, the 
prescriptive 1984 RCRA Amendments prevent reasonable regulations. 
Congress and the executive branch need to fix these fundamental 
problems.
  It is Congresses job to make changes in the laws to remove steps that 
are unnecessary and provide a procedural barrier to the swift 
enforcement of more pressing problems. H.R. 2036 is one example of 
Congress helping the EPA by eliminating an additional administrative 
step which provides relatively few benefits.
  I am pleased to see we have bipartisan support for H.R. 2036. 
Subcommittee Chairman Oxley, Mrs. Lincoln, and the administration have 
worked together and their hard work is reflected in this bill. H.R. 
2036 is also supported by the Ground Water Protection Council, the 
National Association of Counties, and representatives of the industrial 
community.
  I urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to suspend the rules 
and to pass H.R. 2036. First of all, I object to the way this bill was 
brought to the floor for consideration under the suspension calendar. 
It is not in fact a procedure that is at all appropriate.
  With regard to H.R. 2036, the majority worked with the minority 
throughout the committee process. Because of this, we agreed to take up 
this bill under suspension so long as important language was included 
in the committee report. The report was filed only hours ago, This is 
very distressing since it prevents Members and staff from reviewing the 
details of this bill.
  Also, due to the last-minute decision to proceed today, some of my 
colleagues who had anticipated speaking against this bill could not be 
here. Compared to the other abuses of the suspension calendar that we 
have seen today, this is a minor grievance. However, we resent the 
continuing abuses of what is supposed to be a nonpartisan, 
noncontroversial process.
  The second point I want to make about this bill is that although it 
is receiving some bipartisan support today, it is not completely 
without controversy. As the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] 
outlined, this legislation would give EPA authority to grant certain 
blanket exemptions from environmental standards that they have been 
barred from making by recent court decisions.
  I under how Members of Congress and the administration want to work 
with the business community to develop a regulatory system that is more 
accommodating and flexible. However, I do not believe that we can 
lightly dismiss the environmental concerns that have been raised about 
this bill.
  In 1992, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a 
Bush administration regulation which would have allowed hazardous waste 
generators with waste water treatment systems to simply dilute their 
hazardous waste and dump it into an unlined pit or lagoon rather than 
requiring them to take measures to reduce toxicity or otherwise 
minimize the threat posed by the waste.
  The court held that simple dilution did not address the hazardous 
components in the waste, and if these components migrated into the 
ground water, they could pose significant risks to human health and the 
environment.
  Current law requires that hazardous components and a variety of 
wastes be effectively treated not just diluted.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] has argued this bill is 
needed in order to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative environmental 
regulation. When sufficient regulations are in place to protect public 
health and environment, that is a goal that we can all support. 
Unfortunately, this is not a situation where regulations are redundant.
  The Clean Water does cover any release of hazardous components from 
one of these lagoons into a nearby river or lake. However, leakage into 
ground water supply is beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act and 
releases of these hazardous components into the air are not regulated 
under the Clean Air Act.
  EPA has stated that the risks posed by treating certain hazardous 
wastes in this manner are relatively low. However, the Agency's own 
preliminary analysis tells a very different story. Last summer they 
concluded that these wastes do pose potentially significant health 
risks including cancer risks approaching one in a thousand, if ground 
water becomes contaminated.
  I am aware that EPA regards the current data as somewhat limited, 
which is why we pushed for language in the bill allowing the Agency to 
collect and assess additional data. After much discussion, it was 
agreed that they would be given 5 years to complete such a study. 
Although the Agency can probably meet an earlier deadline, I am 
satisfied to see that a time limit was adopted.
  Regardless of any deadline for completion of the study, there can be 
no doubt the intent of this bill is that EPA will dedicate adequate 
resources to develop a technically sound study in 

[[Page H945]]
an expeditious manner. More importantly, however, I believe the Agency 
should be required to make a final determination based on their 
scientific study as to whether or not release of hazardous components 
from any of these holding areas into the air or ground water poses a 
threat to public health and the environment.
  It is troubling that the bill's proponents who assume there is no 
significant risk involved here lack the courage of their convictions. 
Why should not the EPA have to inform the public and the Congress of 
the conclusions it draws from the study that we are requiring the 
Agency to undertake that so fundamentally deals with the public health 
of the public in our country?
  The amendments adopted during the markup sessions of the Committee on 
Commerce greatly improved the original bill by adding language 
directing EPA to complete a study within 5 years. The report language 
clearly directs EPA to begin the study within 60 days and to complete 
it as soon as possible.
  However, without the inclusion of a judicially reviewable final 
determination, the legislation lacks the commonsense requirement that 
EPA reach a decision to act or not act based on any risks identified in 
the study.

                              {time}  1515

  If that additional provision had been included, if that extra 
safeguard of the health of Americans had been approved, then we would 
be in a different posture out here on the floor today. If out of 
respect for the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. 
Furse], and other Members that wanted to speak on this bill, that we 
were giving them that opportunity, then we would not find this bill so 
unacceptable.
  But in its current form, under the procedure which we are using, we 
find it unacceptable, and we urge all Members that care about health 
and safety, care about the water, which goes into hundreds of 
thousands, if not millions of human beings across this country, to vote 
``no,'' to send a strong signal that we want a better, substantive, and 
procedural way to handle these critical issues of public health and 
safety.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, during the 104th Congress, the Commerce Committee has 
been highlighting the problem of inflexible or inappropriate statutory 
requirements. These requirements can prevent EPA from issuing 
regulations or facility cleanups that address realistic and significant 
risks in a cost-effective and cost-reasonable manner.
  H.R. 2036 embodies the position of the EPA in final rules that were 
later struck down by the courts. In each case, EPA did a regulatory 
impact analysis which found that the costs of a given option were 
exceedingly high and the benefits very low. In each case, EPA sought a 
more flexible and balanced approach but was ultimately directed by the 
courts to the most counterproductive result.
  In their March 2, 1995, summary of the proposed rule EPA wrote--

       [t]he Agency is required to set treatment standards for 
     these relatively low risk waste and disposal practices * * * 
     although there are other actions and projects with which the 
     Agency could provide greater protection of human health and 
     the environment.

  In this particular case, EPA estimates suggest over half a billion 
dollars will be spent with little if any improvement to human health. 
Indeed, the Agency states that less safe alternatives may be chosen 
over more safe alternatives. That is unacceptable. In their letter 
endorsing H.R. 2036 the administration wrote--

       [t]he bill would eliminate a mandate that the EPA 
     promulgate stringent and costly treatment requirements for 
     certain low-risk wastes that already are regulated in Clean 
     Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act units.

Understand, they are covered in the Clean Water Act, so in that sense 
it is duplicative.
  H.R. 2036 is also endorsed by organizations representing State 
environmental programs such as the Groundwater Protection Council, and 
the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials as well as the National Association of Counties.
  I appreciate the bipartisan efforts of Mrs. Lincoln and the 
administration in support of H.R. 2036. It is important to move forward 
with legislation that injects common sense into current statutory law 
and H.R. 2036 is just such an injection.
  This is time-critical legislation and I hope that it can proceed 
swiftly through the process.
  Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the process. We had hearings on this 
legislation. The administration came in very effectively supporting 
this legislation. The majority made changes in the legislation at the 
request of the minority. This bill passed out of our subcommittee on a 
unanimous vote with the support of the gentleman from Massachusetts and 
all the other Members on the other side of the aisle that he mentioned. 
It then passed out of the full committee, Mr. Bliley's committee, again 
on a unanimous vote, with all members present voting in favor of the 
legislation.
  This is probably the best example you can imagine of good, bipartisan 
cooperation with the administration, getting rid of unworkable 
regulations that are costly and ineffective. So it is time critical we 
move swiftly through the process.
  I should note, however, these issues, while important for many, are 
simply the tip of the iceberg. We must make fundamental reform to 
ensure that our regulatory programs address realistic and significant 
risk through cost effective and cost reasonable means. There is much 
work to be done.
  I urge all Members to vote for swift passage of 2036, to prevent EPA 
from being forced to use unnecessary and costly regulations.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me quote a letter to the gentleman from 
Virginia, Chairman Bliley, from the administration and EPA in support 
of our efforts.

       The Committee on Commerce's willingness to work with the 
     administration and the minority in a bipartisan spirit and 
     the consequent development of a narrowly tailored and 
     balanced approach to this issue commends this legislation for 
     prompt action by the full House on the suspension calendar.

  Mr. Speaker, nothing could be clearer than the strong support of the 
EPA and the Clinton administration for this legislation. I applaud the 
bipartisanship on the part of the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. 
Lincoln] and others. Let us get this bill passed. Let us provide some 
relief and some common sense to the process.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the only reason I want to recognize myself is I did not 
vote for this bill at the full committee level. It was a voice vote 
that I dissented from. Five of us have in fact filed dissenting views 
in the committee report. So I wanted the Record to be made clear on 
that issue, that there was opposition to the bill, although on a voice 
vote it did pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2036. 
First of all, I want to thank Chairman Bliley and Chairman Oxley for 
working with me on this bill to address my concerns. Additionally, I 
want to extend my deep appreciation to Mr. Dingell who was also a 
pivotal player in developing this legislation. I believe that this is a 
good bill and represents good public policy. In passing H.R. 2036, we 
will be able to reduce environmental regulation without sacrificing the 
health of our environment.
  H.R. 2036 will provide some needed relief to the regulated industry 
by restoring EPA's original regulatory determination that RCRA wastes 
that are no longer hazardous need not be treated as if they were 
hazardous. Not only will this bill save industry around $800 million 
per year, it will have little if no impact on the environment. 
Additionally, we have as a check and balance to the Health and the 
Environment of our constituents incorporated language calling for a 
study of the hazardous waste managed pursuant to this bill to determine 
if any risks to human health or the environment have resulted from this 
new type of management. If risks do present themselves, 

[[Page H946]]
EPA has the authority to impose additional regulatory requirements.
  I have never been a proponent of ``treatment for treatment's sake'' 
and this bill will eliminate the duplication between RCRA's land 
disposal restrictions [LDR] provisions and other environmental laws. As 
long as the water treatment systems and surface water impoundments are 
permitted under the Clean Water Act or the wastes are injected deep 
into the ground under the Safe Drinking Water Act, RCRA LDR mandates 
are not applicable.
  Again, this is a small, but very economical change to RCRA, and I 
encourage my colleagues both in the House and the Senate to keep this 
provision narrow. This bill is needed now and will only be weighted 
down by any extraneous amendments. We should not make H.R. 2036 a 
Christmas tree loaded with controversial ornaments, but rather, lets 
enact sensible regulatory reform, while assuring that human health and 
the environment are properly protected.
  This bill reflects an agreement between industry and the 
administration, who have worked tirelessly in arriving at this 
compromise. True to Vice President Gore's dedication to reinventing 
government, we have written a rifle shot correction to RCRA--making 
corrections and improvements where we can without putting in jeopardy 
health or the environment. I believe that H.R. 2036 and its 
accompanying negotiations should serve as a blueprint for future 
environmental initiatives. It specifically targets problem areas 
without delving into controversial subjects and it is the result of a 
true bipartisan agreement between the Members of Congress and the 
administration.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2036
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address provisions in H.R. 2036, 
the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act.
  First, I want to commend the leadership of the Commerce Committee for 
moving forward with legislation that attempts to solve problems 
involving the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Clean Water Act and 
groundwater protection. The bill should help to streamline and 
coordinate an environmentally responsible approach to management of 
certain wastes in surface impoundments and to provide responsible 
exemptions for solid waste landfills in remote or arid areas and in 
situations lacking any evidence of groundwater pollution.
  Second, I want to thank the Commerce Committee for addressing and 
responding to some of the concerns of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee. The Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee, which I chair, has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act 
and over the pollution of navigable waters. Clearly, we have an 
interest in this bill; we did not pursue a formal referral of H.R. 
2036, however, in part because of the urgency of the issue and the 
willingness of the Commerce Committee to work with us. Like drinking 
water, this is an area where the two committees can and will work 
together.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to address particular provisions 
involving the interplay between the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the 
Clean Water Act. A primary purpose of this bill is to overturn a D.C. 
Circuit Court opinion that would require EPA to regulate wastes under 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act that are already being treated to meet 
standards under the Clean Water Act. This bill will reinstate EPA's 
earlier approach to the management of these wastes: avoid duplicative 
regulation by regulating these wastes under the Clean Water Act alone.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, streamlined, coordinated approach, and 
once again I want to restate what the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Oxley] 
stated so well: The administration has lauded the Committee on 
Commerce, and the letter says, ``for its willingness to work with the 
administration and the minority in a bipartisan spirit.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is all we can ask for. I urge support of H.R. 2036.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the point is that, one, we are unhappy, again I will 
make that statement, with the procedures that have been adopted in 
order to bring this bill out on the floor. There is no need for it to 
come out under this particular process on this particular day, 
disrespectful of the interests of other Members who have worked long 
and hard on this subject as well.
  On the issue of the protections which it is going to give to the 
public health and safety, the point is that no one is certain of the 
risks contained in the depths of these ponds and lagoons. We have 
creatures in these black lagoons that can be transmogrified into very 
dangerous substances as they are put into human bodies. That is why 
this is such a critical subject for us to be deliberating out here on 
the floor. That is why we support a study of these bodies of water, of 
these ponds, of these lagoons, and that it be conducted in an 
expeditious fashion.

                              {time}  1530

  I anticipate that the industry will cooperate in providing data to 
the EPA and that the agency will commit adequate resources to this 
study. But because the bill does not require the EPA to make a judicial 
reviewability determination that these ponds or lagoons are not 
dangerous, I must oppose this measure because we just do not know 
whether these ponds or lagoons are dangerous to the health of the 
communities around them.
  Supporting this legislation does not ultimately provide a mechanism 
by which that determination can be made and be judicially reviewable to 
ensure that the final measure of protection for the public health and 
safety is provided. So I urge all the Members and their staffs who are 
listening to this debate, that a no vote is the appropriate vote. Some 
fine-tuning is needed. The bill should be brought out in a more 
procedurally appropriate fashion, but this day at this time, no is the 
right vote on this very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong aye vote for this proposal.
  This proposal had strong bipartisan support in the subcommittee and 
the full committee. The administration supports this bill, and I quote 
from a letter of the administration to that effect: ``We are writing to 
express the administration's strong support for H.R. 2036. The bill 
would eliminate a mandate that the EPA promulgate stringent and costly 
treatment requirements for certain low-risk wastes that already are 
regulated in Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act Units.''
  The Ground Water Protection Council, an organization for State 
groundwater protection and underground injection control program 
administrators, with members representing 40 States, strongly supports 
enactment.
  The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials strongly supports H.R. 2036.
  Please support H.R. 2036, a bipartisan effort that has the full 
support of the administration. I hope it would be the pleasure for us 
to give unanimous consent for this bill.
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Speaker, I join my distinguished colleagues in support 
of H.R. 2036, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act. This bill is 
also supported by the White House and the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA].
  This legislation represents a very simple, yet important modification 
to the Solid Waste Disposal Act that has the potential to save 
taxpayers as much as $800 million in annual compliance costs--an 
expense that the EPA says will provide no additional environmental 
benefit. This bill was developed through a cooperative, bipartisan 
effort to correct expensive and needless environmental overregulation. 
Efforts have been made throughout the process to accommodate the 
concerns of the environmental community.
  The current land disposal restrictions prohibit land disposal of 
hazardous wastes unless these wastes have first been treated to meet 
EPA standards. As a result of a 1993 decision by the D.C. Circuit 
Court, these restrictions, known as LDR's would also be extended to 
nonhazardous wastes managed in wastewater systems that are already 
regulated under the Clean Water Act or the underground injection 
control [UIC] program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The court adopted 
this position despite the fact that the EPA had previously adopted a 
rule authorizing the appropriate treatment and disposal of these 
materials, and 

[[Page H947]]
despite the fact that the Agency believed that such strict standards 
are inappropriate.
  This legislation would restore the EPA's original regulatory 
determination allowing these materials to be safely treated and 
disposed of in permitted treatment units and injection wells.
  Due to the court decision, the EPA will be forced to impose these 
needless and expensive requirements if Congress does not act very soon. 
I am glad that we are able to act on this legislation today and I hope 
that the bill will move quickly in the other body.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Florida). All time has expired.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bliley] that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 
2036, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________