[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1750-H1753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 688) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require at least 85 
percent of funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency 
from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund to be distributed 
to States for cooperative agreements for undertaking corrective action 
and for enforcement of subtitle I of such act, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 688

       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 ``Leaking Underground Storage 
     Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act of 1997''.

TITLE I--DISTRIBUTIONS FROM LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND

     SEC. 101. LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.

       (a) Trust Fund Distribution.--Section 9004 of the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991c) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Trust Fund Distribution to States.--
       ``(1) In General.--(A) The Administrator shall distribute 
     to States at least 85 percent of the funds appropriated to 
     the Environmental Protection Agency from the Leaking 
     Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund (in this subsection 
     referred to as the `Trust Fund') each fiscal year for the 
     reasonable costs under cooperative agreements entered into 
     with the Administrator for the following:
       ``(i) States' actions under section 9003(h)(7)(A).
       ``(ii) Necessary administrative expenses directly related 
     to corrective action and compensation programs under 
     subsection (c)(1).
       ``(iii) Enforcement of a State or local program approved 
     under this section or enforcement of this subtitle or similar 
     State or local provisions by a State or local government.
       ``(iv) State and local corrective actions pursuant to 
     regulations promulgated under section 9003(c)(4).
       ``(v) Corrective action and compensation programs under 
     subsection (c)(1) for releases from underground storage tanks 
     regulated under this subtitle in any instance, as determined 
     by the State, in which the financial resources of an owner or 
     operator, excluding resources provided by programs under 
     subsection (c)(1), are not adequate to pay for the cost of a 
     corrective action without significantly impairing the ability 
     of the owner or operator to continue in business.
       ``(B) Funds provided by the Administrator under 
     subparagraph (A) may not be used by States for purposes of 
     providing financial assistance to an owner or operator in 
     meeting the requirements respecting underground storage tanks 
     contained in section 280.21 of title 40 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection) or similar requirements in 
     State programs approved under this section or similar State 
     or local provisions.
       ``(2) Allocation.--
       ``(A) Process.--In the case of a State that the 
     Administrator has entered into a cooperative agreement with 
     under section 9003(h)(7)(A), the Administrator shall 
     distribute funds from the Trust Fund to the State using the 
     allocation process developed by the Administrator for such 
     cooperative agreements.
       ``(B) Revisions to process.--The Administrator may revise 
     such allocation process only after--
       ``(i) consulting with State agencies responsible for 
     overseeing corrective action for releases from underground 
     storage tanks and with representatives of owners and 
     operators; and
       ``(ii) taking into consideration, at a minimum, the total 
     revenue received from each State into the Trust Fund, the 
     number of confirmed releases from leaking underground storage 
     tanks in each State, the number of notified petroleum storage 
     tanks in each State, and the percent of the population of 
     each State using groundwater for any beneficial purpose.
       ``(3) Recipients.--Distributions from the Trust Fund under 
     this subsection shall be made directly to the State agency 
     entering into a cooperative agreement or enforcing the State 
     program.
       ``(4) Cost recovery prohibition.--Funds provided to States 
     from the Trust Fund to owners or operators for programs under 
     subsection (c)(1) for releases from underground storage tanks 
     are not subject to cost recovery by the Administrator under 
     section 9003(h)(6).''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--Subtitle I of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) is amended as follows:

[[Page H1751]]

       (1) Section 9001(3)(A) (42 U.S.C. 6991(3)(A)) is amended by 
     striking out ``sustances'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``substances''.
       (2) Section 9003(f)(1) (42 U.S.C. 6991b(f)(1)) is amended 
     by striking out ``subsection (c) and (d)'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``subsections (c) and (d)''.
       (3) Section 9004(a) (42 U.S.C. 6991c(a)) is amended by 
     striking out ``in 9001(2)(A)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``in section 9001(2)(A)''.
       (4) Section 9005 (42 U.S.C. 6991d) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking out ``study taking'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``study, taking'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking out ``relevent'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``relevant''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(4), by striking out ``Evironmental'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``Environmental''.

               TITLE II--EXTENSION OF TRUST FUND PURPOSES

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF TRUST FUND PURPOSES.

       Paragraph (1) of section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures) is amended by 
     striking ``to carry out section 9003(h)'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``to carry out--
       ``(A) section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as 
     in effect on the date of the enactment of the Superfund 
     Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986), and
       ``(A) section 9004(f) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as 
     in effect on the date of the enactment of the Leaking 
     Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act of 
     1997).''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Oxley] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the estimable Yogi Berra said, ``It's like 
deja vu all over again.'' H.R. 688 is the same Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank bill we passed by a voice vote on the floor just 7 months 
ago in the last Congress. Except for a couple of technical, completely 
nonsubstantive changes, everything is the same except the number.
  The LUST program cleans up leaking underground storage tanks and 
requires tank owners to put in new tanks meeting tough Federal 
standards by the end of next year. The program is funded by a dedicated 
trust fund.
  Owners of cars pay taxes into the LUST trust fund. On every gallon of 
gas we pay a one-tenth of a cent tax for the LUST program. This tax 
went into effect in 1987 and expired at the end of 1995, but only 40 
percent of the money we have paid has been spent out on the program. We 
have spent only $655 million on LUST since 1987 out of $1.7 billion 
collected. Before we give the taxes another ride, we ought to look 
carefully at using what we have already collected. Congress did not 
create the trust fund for the sake of having another trust fund; it was 
created to fund this particular program.
  In contrast with some other environmental programs, we taxpayers seem 
to have gotten an effective program for our LUST money. With financial 
assistance from EPA cooperative agreements, States have secured cleanup 
of 140,000 sites since 1987. Contrast this with Superfund. Taxpayers 
spent $17 billion through the EPA alone in 17 years and only 130 sites 
or so were taken off the list of the country's worst sites. States 
should have a bigger role in running Superfund.
  While I am on the subject, I want Members to know we are working on 
Superfund reform in my subcommittee on a bipartisan basis with the 
administration, and I hope our efforts will result in a bill with 
bipartisan support from our full committee.
  Back to LUST, H.R. 688 improves the LUST program in two ways:
  First, it requires EPA to give at least 85 percent of its 
appropriation to the States each year. This puts the money where the 
tanks are and where the cleanup work is done.
  Second, the bill authorizes three new uses of the Federal funding, 
giving States flexibility to make their programs more effective by, 
one, putting the money into their financial assurance funds for tank 
cleanup in cases of financial hardship; two, enforcing requirements 
that underground tanks meet minimum leak detection and prevention 
standards by 1998; and, three, administering their State assurance 
funds.
  Less than 30 percent of tank owners have come into compliance with 
the EPA tank requirements that all tank owners will have to meet in 
1998. We need to help States meet the financial burdens of the huge 
enforcement task that is coming down the pike next year.
  The bill also prohibits States from using the money to help someone 
comply with the 1998 tank requirements so tax dollars will not be used 
to put people who have already complied with the law at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  This is another good bill for the environment from the Committee on 
Commerce, and I encourage Members to support this bill as they did just 
7 months ago on the floor.
  I congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan 
Schaefer, the sponsor of the bill, for his work, as well as the 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bart Stupak, the chief Democrat cosponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia, 
Chairman Bliley, and members of the committee for working together in 
taking this major step forward on moving this very important bill. I 
appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman from Colorado, 
Mr. Dan Schaefer, and his staff. We have worked together well the past 
Congress and this Congress to put forth this leaking underground 
storage tank legislation.

                              {time}  1845

  The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program is one of the most 
important and least known environmental programs run by the Federal 
Government and the States. The act regulates the use of large 
underground tanks that hold petroleum products. One need only to go to 
their local gas station to find tanks regulated underneath this act.
  This is the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress. In 
this report, which list each State, this report states that the leaking 
underground storage tanks are the most frequent cause of groundwater 
contamination. Unfortunately, the Committee on Appropriations does not 
feel our Nation's groundwater is as high a priority as many of us here 
in this Chamber believe tonight. In fiscal year 1997, the Committee on 
Appropriations cut the President's request by more than a third for the 
funds necessary to help us clean up leaking underground storage tanks.
  The Committee on Appropriation's actions are even more frustrating 
because the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program is funded, as the 
gentleman from Ohio pointed out, from a tax on petroleum products. 
Currently, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, or LUST, as 
it is called, has a billion dollar surplus. I will continue to join 
with my colleagues, especially the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan 
Schaefer, in the fight to increase the appropriations for this program.
  In Michigan, my State, the State's leaking underground storage tank 
fund is insolvent due to improper management and funding. In Michigan, 
the fund is not accepting new claims, and cleanups on leaking 
underground tanks have all but ceased. Although I believe the 
legislation being discussed here tonight is an important step in 
cleaning up leaking tanks, it is my hope that States, and Michigan in 
particular, will renew their commitment to this program.
  Beyond any doubt, H.R. 688 will make improvements to the program. 
These improvements will increase the amount of funding available for 
contaminated sites, increase the amount of money for State enforcement, 
and guarantee that the money Congress appropriates for this program 
will get to the States.
  This legislation does not completely turn the program over to the 
States. We have maintained a strong role for the EPA in this 
legislation by preserving the current cooperative agreement process 
between the States and the Federal Government. This bill does not 
decrease the Federal role in the LUST

[[Page H1752]]

program. Rather, it will strengthen the Federal-State partnership that 
has been successful since the program's inception.
  The bill before us today will not require the Committee on 
Appropriations to direct more resources to this problem. However, it 
will strengthen the EPA's partnership with the States and increase 
EPA's flexibility to use this money for the Leaking Underground Storage 
Tank Program and get that money back to the States.
  I would like to comment briefly, if I may, just on a few points that 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] made about the Superfund Program 
and its comparison with the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program. 
Although we are certainly not here to debate Superfund issues tonight, 
it is clear that in order to achieve our mutual goal of improving the 
Superfund Program, we must take a full and fair look at the program as 
it exists today.
  I have heard too many times from my Republican friends that very few 
Superfund sites have been cleaned up despite heavy expenditures. These 
statements are no more than old, worn out political rhetoric. The facts 
reveal an entirely different landscape:
  Out of the 1,335 National Priorities List sites, 1,100 of those sites 
have had significant on-site, physical cleanup work performed. Those 
1,100 sites break down as follows:
  At 400 sites, all cleanup construction has been completed; at 500 
sites, actual cleanup construction is under way, such as construction 
of a slurry wall for installation of a treatment system; and at 200 
sites, significant removal work has been completed to abate an imminent 
hazard.
  Mr. Speaker, in my district, Manistee Harbor, we were just there the 
other night to sign the final documents between the State of Michigan, 
industry, environmental groups, and the Federal Government, because we 
have taken a site that was on the Superfund that put PCBs out into Lake 
Michigan, and in less than 3 years we have most of it cleaned up. 
Everybody has agreed upon a solution. It is being done, and it has been 
a record cleanup for a Superfund site. That could not have happened 
without the help of my friends on the Republican side.
  Mr. Speaker, Superfund expenditures to date have totaled $13 billion, 
not the wildly inflated figures we hear. It is my hope, and if we take 
Manistee Harbor as an example, that our mutual efforts on this bill 
here tonight will serve as an example of how we can work together on 
the more difficult issue of Superfund reauthorization. We should 
examine the facts and the progress of the Superfund Program today in 
order to achieve a bipartisan consensus on improving Superfund.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, 
the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, and their staffs, as we 
work this bill the rest of the way through, through the Senate, and on 
to the conference committee, and even to the White House, and I hope we 
can do the same with Superfund.
  On today's bill, I would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado, 
Mr. Dan Schaefer, and his staff person Patrick O'Keefe, as well as 
Alison Burkes of the minority staff; Fred Eases from the majority and 
Matt Berzok on my staff for all their hard work over the past year on 
this very important program, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
Program.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer.
  (Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I again want to certainly thank the gentleman from Ohio 
and the ranking members of this committee for moving this finally 
along.
  The objectives of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
Amendments Act, which is H.R. 688, are really simple. This is identical 
to the bill that we passed last year, ran out of time, but I think it 
is very imperative that we finally get back to it. It is going to give 
the States, as has been stated, more financial stability in operating 
their underground storage tank programs and greater flexibility to 
address unique environmental problems, particularly in rural America.
  Throughout the drafting process, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Stupak] and I solicited and received substantial input on how to best 
achieve our goals. As a result, the final product we have before us 
today meets all our initial goals, with a strong emphasis on quicker 
cleanups and stricter enforcement. H.R. 688 has over 70 bipartisan 
cosponsors and diverse private sector support.
  The so-called LUST program was first enacted in 1984. The trust fund 
followed in 1986. The current LUST statute allows States to spend the 
Federal LUST trust fund money in a limited number of instances, mainly 
for corrective actions where an owner is unable, or unwilling, to clean 
up a leak.
  Along with the corrective action standards for leaking tanks, the 
LUST statute also requires owners and operators of underground storage 
tanks to meet certain standards. The deadline for compliance with these 
tank standards is 1998. When implemented, the tank standards will 
provide an important preventative protection against many future leaks.
  The LUST program has largely been a success. The regulated industry 
and the EPA tank office share a good working relationship. However, 
over the next few years the nature of the program is going to change 
dramatically. EPA has stated it envisions drastically scaling back the 
tank office. States will supervise corrective action where leaks have 
occurred and become the primary enforcers for the tank standards.
  I certainly support this progression. However, if we expect States to 
carry out more duties, it is critical that they must be given more 
freedom to use LUST trust fund money where most needed.
  Finally, EPA has traditionally dedicated about 85 percent of its 
annual LUST trust fund appropriation to the States. But as State 
responsibilities do increase, we need to give them peace of mind that 
this tradition will continue. H.R. 688 gives this financial stability.
  I want to thank all those involved in crafting this bill. The process 
has embodied the spirit of bipartisanship and compromise. Our final 
product increases enforcement and enhances site cleanups with the 
broad-based support of the regulated industry.
  I again want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] for 
all his work on this, and certainly again thank the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley], and on my staff Patrick O'Keefe for staying with this 
issue for so long.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this sound environmental 
initiative.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle] who was a valuable asset in 
drafting this legislation and as a member of the Committee on Science 
certainly understands it.
  (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 688. I want to 
thank the bill's sponsors, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan 
Schaefer, and my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, 
for their diligent leadership on this issue.
  The LUST program was enacted in 1984 to address the potential health 
and environmental risks associated with antiquated and substandard 
underground storage tanks. A tax was levied on all petroleum products 
to create a trust fund to fund these efforts. That tax expired on 
December 31, 1995, with nearly $1 billion in the trust fund.
  Unfortunately, the majority of these funds expended so far have gone 
to offset general Federal spending and not for the purpose to which it 
was meant to be dedicated.
  The LUST Amendments Act gives the ironclad assurance that trust fund 
spending will go to assisting States to pursue compliance and 
corrective action associated with the LUST program. It also gives the 
States more flexibility in using these funds, including direct use of 
Federal LUST trust fund money to help business owners who would 
otherwise be unable to afford Government-mandated cleanups.

[[Page H1753]]

 These cleanups are pivotal to comprehensive economic revitalization 
efforts like the one many of us in the Pennsylvania delegation are 
looking at for Allegheny County and for the Mon Valley region in 
particular.
  We have a good program here, and Congress in its wisdom found a sound 
funding mechanism for it. Let us demonstrate our good faith to small 
businesses in this sector and move this legislation forward without 
delay.
  Last year, the Congress passed this legislation, but the Senate 
failed to act on it before adjournment last October. Since this year's 
version is identical to the previously approved bill, I expect the 
House will act expeditiously to pass the LUST Amendments Act. 
Hopefully, this will give the Senate ample time to send this 
legislation to the President for his approval.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 688, 
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act. As an 
original cosponsor of the legislation, this Member would like to 
commend the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, 
and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, for 
introducing this bill and working for its enactment.
  Across the Nation, leaking underground storage tanks present a hazard 
which must be addressed. Unfortunately, less than half of the 
identified leaking tanks have been remedied. In addition, there are 
likely thousands of other unidentified leaking tanks which require 
action.
  This legislation improves the current situation by distributing more 
money from the existing trust fund to the States where it belongs. The 
trust fund was established by Congress in 1986 and currently contains 
about $1 billion. Although the trust fund is intended to provide 
assistance in the cleanup of underground storage tanks, too much of the 
money in the trust fund has been used to offset general Federal 
spending.
  This Member certainly believes that the money in the trust fund 
should be used for the purposes for which it was originally intended; 
money simply accumulating in the trust fund obviously does not address 
the current needs. The large number of remaining leaking underground 
storage tank sites is evidence that the States could use this money 
which is currently accumulating in the trust fund. This bill would 
assist States in more efficiently receiving and disbursing money from 
the trust fund. It would also give the States increased flexibility in 
the use of money from the trust fund.
  This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 688.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Commerce Committee's 
Finance and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, I rise in support of H.R. 
688, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Act, commonly 
referred to as the LUST program.
  My colleague, Mr. Schaefer, has developed a well-crafted piece of 
legislation which has two primary purposes. The first is to ensure that 
85 percent of the money Congress appropriates for the program goes to 
the States; and to expand the uses for which the trust fund moneys can 
be used.
  In 1986, Congress created the LUST Trust Fund, paid for with a one-
tenth of one cent per gallon tax on motor fuels. The Trust Fund is to 
be used by the EPA or the States, in accordance with Federal law, to 
enforce Underground Storage Tank corrective action requirements; to 
conduct cleanups where no solvent responsible party can be found, where 
there is a known but unwilling responsible party, or where a 
responsible party does not have the financial ability to pay for the 
entire cleanup.
  Unlike many other well-intentioned bills enacted by Congress, which 
then fall victim to the law of unintended consequences, the LUST 
program has met its intended purpose to set leak detection and 
prevention standards for underground tanks.
  H.R. 688 improves on the current program because it provides an 
increased amount of stability and certainty to State agencies while 
granting greater flexibility.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 688.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan 
Schaefer, once again for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 688, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________