[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 74 (Thursday, May 20, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5739-S5764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Helms, and Mrs. 
        Feinstein):
  S. 1086. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive 
the income inclusion on a distribution from an individual retirement 
account to the extent that the distribution is contributed for 
charitable purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                      IRA Rollover to Charity Act

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to 
introduce, along with Senator Durbin, the IRA Rollover to Charity Act 
of 1999. This legislation has the support of numerous charitable 
organizations across the United States. The effect of this bill would 
be to unlock billions of dollars in savings Americans hold and make 
them available to charity.
  Mr. President, the legislation will allow individuals to roll assets 
from an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) into a charity or a 
deferred charitable gift plan without incurring any income tax 
consequences. Thus, the donation would be made to charity without ever 
withdrawing it as income and paying tax on it.
  Americans hold well over $1 trillion in assets in IRAs. Nearly half 
of America's families have IRAs. Recent studies show that assets of 
qualified retirement plans comprise a substantial part of the net worth 
of many persons. Many individuals would like to give a portion of these 
assets to charity.
  Under current law, if an IRA is transferred into a charitable 
remainder trust, donors are required to recognize all such income. 
Therefore, absent the changes called for in the legislation, the donor 
will have taxable income in the year the gift is funded. The IRA 
Rollover to Charity Act lifts the disincentives contained in our 
complicated and burdensome tax code and will unleash a critical source 
of funding for our nation's charities. This is a common sense way to 
remove obstacles to private charitable giving.
  Under the legislation, upon reaching age 59\1/2\, an individual could 
move assets penalty-free from an IRA directly to charity or into a 
qualifying deferred charitable gift plan--e.g. charitable reminder 
trusts, pooled income funds and gift annuities. In the latter case the 
donor would be able to receive an income stream from the retirement 
plan assets, which would be taxed according to normal rules. Upon the 
death of the individual, the remainder would be transferred to charity.
  Mr. President, I hope the Senate will join in this effort to provide 
a valuable new source of philanthropy for our nation's charities. This 
legislation has the support of numerous universities and charitable 
groups, including the Charitable Accord, an umbrella organization 
representing more than 1,000 organizations and associations.
  Mr. President, I have just returned from the Balkans. I have seen 
first hand the wonderful work that is being done by charitable groups 
in dealing with the massive refugee crisis that has occurred there. As 
terrible as this crisis has been, it would be worse if not for the 
great work that is being done by charitable groups. Our bill will help 
direct additional resources to those charities and thousands of others. 
I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 1088. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey 
certain administrative sites in national forests in the State of 
Arizona, to convey certain land to the City of Sedona, Arizona for a 
wastewater treatment facility, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


          the arizona national forest improvement act of 1999

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the U.S. Forest Service is interested in 
exchanging or selling six unmanageable, undesirable and/or excess 
parcels of land in the Prescott, Tonto, Kaibab and Coconino National 
Forests. In addition, the Forest Service has agreed to sell land to the 
City of Sedona for use as an effluent disposal system. If the parcels 
are sold, the Forest Service wants to use the proceeds from five of 
these sales to either fund new construction or upgrade current 
administrative facilities at these national forests. Funds generated 
from the sale of the other parcels could be used to fund acquisition of 
sites, or construction of administrative facilities at any national 
forest in Arizona. Transfers of land completed under this bill will be 
done in accordance with all other applicable laws, including 
environmental laws.
  Mr. President, this bill will enhance customer and administrative 
services by allowing the Forest Service to consolidate and update 
facilities and/or relocate facilities to more convenient locations. It 
offers a simple and common-sense way to enhance services for national 
forest users in Arizona, and to facilitate the disposal of 
unmanageable, undesirable and/or excess parcels of national forest 
lands. This bill will also facilitate the construction of a much needed 
wastewater treatment plant for the City of Sedona.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1088

       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 ``Arizona National Forest 
     Improvement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Sedona, 
     Arizona.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 3. SALE OR EXCHANGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SITES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may, under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, sell or exchange 
     any and all right, title, and interest of the United States 
     in and to the following National Forest System land and 
     administrative sites:
       (1) The Camp Verde Administrative Site, comprising 
     approximately 213.60 acres, as depicted on the map entitled 
     ``Camp Verde Administrative Site'', dated April 12, 1997.
       (2) A portion of the Cave Creek Administrative Site, 
     comprising approximately 16 acres, as depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Cave Creek Administrative Site'', dated May 1, 
     1997.

[[Page S5740]]

       (3) The Fredonia Duplex Housing Site, comprising 
     approximately 1.40 acres, and the Fredonia Housing Site, 
     comprising approximately 1.58 acres, as depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Fredonia Duplex Dwelling, Fredonia Ranger 
     Dwelling'', dated August 28, 1997.
       (4) The Groom Creek Administrative Site, comprising 
     approximately 7.88 acres, as depicted on the map entitled 
     ``Groom Creek Administrative Site'', dated April 29, 1997.
       (5) The Payson Administrative Site, comprising 
     approximately 296.43 acres, as depicted on the map entitled 
     ``Payson Administrative Site'', dated May 1, 1997.
       (6) The Sedona Administrative Site, comprising 
     approximately 21.41 acres, as depicted on the map entitled 
     ``Sedona Administrative Site'', dated April 12, 1997.
       (b) Consideration.--Consideration for a sale or exchange of 
     land under subsection (a) may include the acquisition of 
     land, existing improvements, and improvements constructed to 
     the specifications of the Secretary.
       (c) Applicable Law.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, any sale or exchange of land under subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the laws (including regulations) 
     applicable to the conveyance and acquisition of land for the 
     National Forest System.
       (d) Cash Equalization.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary may accept a cash equalization payment 
     in excess of 25 percent of the value of any land or 
     administrative site exchanged under subsection (a).
       (e) Solicitation of Offers.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may solicit offers for the 
     sale or exchange of land under this section on such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary may prescribe.
       (2) Rejection of offers.--The Secretary may reject any 
     offer made under this section if the Secretary determines 
     that the offer is not adequate or not in the public interest.
       (f) Revocations.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, on conveyance of land by the Secretary under this 
     section, any public order withdrawing the land from any form 
     of appropriation under the public land laws is revoked.

     SEC. 4. CONVEYANCE TO CITY OF SEDONA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may sell to the city of 
     Sedona, Arizona, by quitclaim deed in fee simple, all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     approximately 300 acres of land as depicted on the map in the 
     environmental assessment entitled ``Sedona Effluent 
     Management Plan'', dated August 1998, for construction of an 
     effluent disposal system in Yavapai County, Arizona.
       (b) Description.--A legal description of the land conveyed 
     under subsection (a) shall be available for public inspection 
     in the office of the Chief of the Forest Service, Washington, 
     District of Columbia.
       (c) Consideration.--
       (1) Fair market value.--As consideration for the conveyance 
     of land under subsection (a), the City shall pay to the 
     Secretary an amount equal to the fair market value of the 
     land as determined by an appraisal acceptable to the 
     Secretary and prepared in accordance with the Uniform 
     Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.
       (2) Cost of appraisal.--The City shall pay the cost of the 
     appraisal of the land.
       (3) Payment.--Payment of the amount determined under 
     paragraph (1) (including any interest payable under paragraph 
     (4)) shall be paid, at the option of the City--
       (A) in full not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     conveyance of the land; or
       (B) in 7 equal annual installments commencing not later 
     than January 1 of the first year following the date of the 
     conveyance and annually thereafter until the total amount has 
     been paid.
       (4) Interest rate.--Any payment due for the conveyance of 
     land under this section shall accrue, beginning on the date 
     of the conveyance, interest at a rate equal to the current 
     (as of the date of the conveyance) market yield on 
     outstanding, marketable obligations of the United States with 
     maturities of 1 year.
       (d) Release.--Subject to compliance with all Federal 
     environmental laws by the Secretary before the date of 
     conveyance of land under this section, on conveyance of the 
     land, the City shall agree in writing to hold the United 
     States harmless from any and all claims to the land, 
     including all claims resulting from hazardous materials on 
     the conveyed land.
       (e) Right of Reentry.--At any time before full payment is 
     made for the conveyance of land under this section, the 
     conveyance shall be subject to a right of reentry in the 
     United States if the Secretary determines that--
       (1) the City has not complied with the requirements of this 
     section or the conditions prescribed by the Secretary in the 
     deed of conveyance; or
       (2) the conveyed land is not used for disposal of treated 
     effluent or other purposes related to the construction of an 
     effluent disposal system in Yavapai County, Arizona.

     SEC. 5. DISPOSITION OF FUNDS.

       (a) Deposit of Proceeds.--The Secretary shall deposit the 
     proceeds of a sale or exchange under this Act in the fund 
     established under Public Law 90-171 (16 U.S.C. 484a) 
     (commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'').
       (b) Use of Proceeds.--Funds deposited under subsection (a) 
     shall be available to the Secretary, without further Act of 
     appropriation, for--
       (1) the acquisition, construction, or improvement of 
     administrative facilities for the Coconino National Forest, 
     Kaibab National Forest, Prescott National Forest, and Tonto 
     National Forest; or
       (2) the acquisition of land and or an interest in land in 
     the State of Arizona.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOW (for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1089. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 
2001 for the United States Coast Guard, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


               THE COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 1999.
  The Coast Guard provides many critical services for our nation. 
Dedicated Coast Guard personnel save an average of more than 5,000 
lives, $2.5 billion in property, and assist more than 100,000 other 
mariners in distress. Through boater safety programs and maintenance of 
an extensive network of aids to navigation, the Coast Guard protects 
thousands of additional people engaged in coastwise trade, commercial 
fishing activities, or simply enjoying a day of recreation out on our 
bays, oceans, and waterways.
  The Coast Guard enforces all federal laws and treaties related to the 
high seas and U.S. waters. This includes marine resource protection and 
pollution control. As one of the five armed forces, it provides a 
critical component of the nation's defense strategy, something weighing 
heavily on all of our minds lately.
  Last year, Congress enacted the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 
1998, which authorized the Coast Guard through Fiscal Year 1999. The 
bill I am introducing today reauthorizes the Coast Guard for the next 
two years--Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001.
  It authorizes both appropriations and personnel levels for these two 
years. It also contains various provisions that are designed to provide 
greater flexibility to the Coast Guard on personnel administration; 
strengthen marine safety provisions; includes sufficient funding to 
allow for a 4.4 percent pay raise; and other provisions.
  One provision that deserves particular mention relates to icebreaking 
services. The President's FY 2000 budget request includes a proposal to 
decomission 11 WYTL-class harbor tugs. These tugs provide vital 
icebreaking services throughout the northern states, including my home 
state of Maine. While I understand that the age of this vessel class 
may require some action by the agency, I feel it would be premature to 
decommission these vessels before the Coast Guard has identified a 
means to rectify any potentially harmful degradation of services. The 
Coast Guard has identified seven waterways within Maine that would 
suffer a meaningful degradation of service should these tugs be brought 
offline now. These waterways provide necessary transport routes for oil 
tankers, commercial fishing vessels, and cargo ships. The costs would 
be excessive to the local communities should that means of transport be 
cut off. As such, the bill I am introducing today includes a measure 
that would require the Coast Guard to submit a report to Congress 
before removing these tugs from service that will include an analysis 
of the use of this class of harbor tugs to perform icebreaking 
services; the degree to which the decommissioning of each such vessel 
would result in a degradation of current services; and recommendations 
to remediate such degradation.
  As part of its law enforcement mission in 1998, the Coast Guard 
seized 75 vessels transporting more than 100,000 pounds of illegal 
narcotics headed for our shores. This bill provides funding to maintain 
many of the new drug interdiction initiatives of the past few years. 
The Coast Guard has proven time and again its ability to stem the tide 
of drugs entering our nation through water routes.
  Finally, the Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for preventing 
and responding to major pollution incidents in the coastal zone. It 
responds to more than 17,000 pollution incidents in the average year. 
This bill includes a provision that provides the Coast Guard with 
emergency borrowing authority from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. 
The measure would enhance the

[[Page S5741]]

Coast Guard's ability to effectively respond to major oil spills.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill that enjoys bipartisan support on 
the Commerce Committee. I look forward to moving this bill to the 
Senate floor at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1089

       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 ``Coast Guard Authorization 
     Act of 1999''.

                         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

       (a) Authroization for Fiscal year 2000.--Funds are 
     authorized to be appropriated for necessary expenses of the 
     Coast Guard for fiscal year 2000 as follows:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $2,941,039,000, of which $334,000,000 shall be available for 
     defense-related activities and of which $25,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and 
     improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $350,326,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
       (3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of 
     technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating 
     to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in 
     support of search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine 
     safety, marine environmental protection, enforcement of laws 
     and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and 
     defense readiness, $21,709,000, to remain available until 
     expended,of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligation 
     otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this 
     purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for 
     medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, such sums as may 
     be necessary, to remain available until expended.
       (5) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast 
     Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated 
     with operations and maintenance), $19,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       (6) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable 
     waters of the United States constituting obstructions to 
     navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs 
     associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $26,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.
       (b) Authorization for Fiscal Year 2001.--funds are 
     authorized to be appropriated for necessary expenses of the 
     Coast Guard for fiscal year 2001, as follows:
       (1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, 
     $2,941,039,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be derived form 
     the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and 
     improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $350,326,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of 
     section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
       (3) For research, development, test, and evaluation of 
     technologies, materials, and human factors directly relating 
     to improving the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in 
     support of search and rescue, aids to navigation, marine 
     safety, marine environmental protection, enforcement of laws 
     and treaties, ice operations, oceanographic research, and 
     defense readiness, $21,709,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund.
       (4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations 
     otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this 
     purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family 
     Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for 
     medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under 
     chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, such sums as may 
     be necessary, to remain available until expended.
       (5) For environmental compliance and restoration at Coast 
     Guard facilities (other than parts and equipment associated 
     with operations and maintenance), $19,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       (6) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable 
     waters of the United States constituting obstructions to 
     navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs 
     associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $26,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

     SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND 
                   TRAINING.

       (a) End-of-Year Strength for Fiscal Year 2000.--The Coast 
     Guard is authorized an end-of-year strength for active duty 
     personnel of 36,350 as of September 30, 2000.
       (b) Training Student Loads for Fiscal Year 2000.--For 
     fiscal year 2000, the Coast Guard is authorized average 
     military training student loads as follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training, 1,500 student years.
       (2) For flight training, 100 student years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions, 300 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition, 1,000 student years.
       (c) End-of-Year Strength for Fiscal Year 2001.--The Coast 
     Guard is authorized an end-of-year strength for active duty 
     personnel of 36,350 as of September 30, 2001.
       (d) Training Student Loads for Fiscal Year 2001.--For 
     fiscal year 2001, the Coast Guard is authorized average 
     military training student loads as follows:
       (1) For recruit and special training, 1,500 student years.
       (2) For flight training, 100 student years.
       (3) For professional training in military and civilian 
     institutions, 300 student years.
       (4) For officer acquisition, 1,000 student years.

                     TITLE II--PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 201. COAST GUARD BAND DIRECTOR RANK.

       Section 336(d) of title 14, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``commander'' and inserting ``captain''.

     SEC. 202. COAST GUARD RESERVE SPECIAL PAY.

       Section 308d(a) of title 37, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``or the Secretary of the Department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating'' after ``Secretary of 
     Defense''.

     SEC. 203. COAST GUARD MEMBERSHIP ON THE USO BOARD OF 
                   GOVERNORS.

       Section 1305(b) of title 36, United States Code, is amended 
     by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and inserting 
     after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary of Transportation, or the Secretary's 
     designee, when the Coast Guard is not operating under the 
     Department of the Navy.''.

     SEC. 204. COMPENSATORY ABSENCE FOR ISOLATED DUTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 511 of title 14, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 511. Compensatory absence from duty for military 
       personnel at isolated duty stations

       ``The Secretary may prescribe regulations to grant 
     compensatory absence from duty to military personnel of the 
     Coast Guard serving at isolated duty stations of the Coast 
     Guard when conditions of duty result in confinement because 
     of isolation or in long periods of continuous duty.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 13 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:

``511. Compensatory absence from duty for military personnel at 
              isolated duty stations''.

     SEC. 205. ACCELERATED PROMOTION OF CERTAIN COAST GUARD 
                   OFFICERS.

       Title 14, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 259, by adding at the end a new subsection 
     (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) After selecting the officers to be recommended for 
     promotion, a selection board may recommend officers of 
     particular merit, from among those officers chosen for 
     promotion to be placed at the top of the list of selectees 
     promulgated by the Secretary under section 271(a) of this 
     title. The number of officers that a board may recommend to 
     be placed at the top of the top of the list of selectees 
     promulgated by the Secretary under section 271(a) of this 
     title. The number of officers that a board may recommend to 
     be placed at the top of the list of selectees may not exceed 
     the percentages set forth in subsection (b) unless such a 
     percentage is a number less than one, in which case the board 
     may recommend one officer for such placement. No officer may 
     be recommended to be placed at the top of the list of 
     selectees unless he or she receives the recommendation of at 
     least a majority of the members of a board composed of five 
     members, or at least two-thirds of the members of a board 
     composed of more than five members.'';
       (2) in section 260(a), by inserting ``and the names of 
     those officers recommended to be advanced to the top of the 
     list of selectees established by the Secretary under section 
     271(a) of this title'' after ``promotion''; and
       (3) in section 271(a), by inserting at the end therefore 
     the following: ``The names of all officers approved by the 
     President and recommended by the board to be placed at the 
     top of the list of selectees shall be placed at the top of 
     the list of selectees in the order of seniority on the active 
     duty promotion list.''

                        TITLE III--MARINE SAFETY

     SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF TERRITORIAL SEA FOR VESSEL BRIDGE-TO-
                   BRIDGE RADIOTELEPHONE ACT.

       Section 4(b) of the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge Radio-telephone 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1203(b)), is amended by striking ``United 
     States inside the lines established pursuant to section 2 of 
     the Act of February 19, 1895 (28 Stat. 672), as amended.'' 
     and inserting ``United States, which includes all waters of 
     the territorial sea of the United States as described in 
     Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988.''.

     SEC. 302. REPORT ON ICEBREAKING SERVICES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 9 months afer the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     shall submit to

[[Page S5742]]

     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House, a report on the use of WYTL-
     class harbor tugs. The report shall include an analyis of the 
     use of such vessels to perform icebreaking services; the 
     degree to which, if any, the decommissioning of each such 
     vessel would result in a degradation of current icebreaking 
     services; and in the event that the decommissioning of any 
     such vessel would result in a significant degradation of 
     icebreaking services, recommendations to remediate such 
     degradation.
       (b) 9-Month Waiting Period.--The Commandant of the Coast 
     Guard shall not plan, implement or finalize any regulation or 
     take any other action which would result in the 
     decommissioning of any WYTL-class harbor tugs until 9 months 
     after the date of the submission of the report required by 
     subsection (a) of this section.

     SEC. 303. OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND ANNUAL REPORT.

       (a) In General.--The report regarding the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund required by the Conference Report (House 
     Report 101-892) accompanying the Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991, as that 
     requirement was amended by section 1122 of the Federal 
     Reports Elmination and Sunset Act of 1995 (26 U.S.C. 9509 
     note), shall no longer be submitted to Congress.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 1122 of the Federal Reports 
     Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (26 U.S.C. 9509 note) is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking subsection (a); and
       (2) striking ``(b) Report on Joint Federal and State Motor 
     Fuel Tax Compliance Project.--''.

     SEC. 304. OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND; EMERGENCY FUND 
                   BORROWING AUTHORITY.

       Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 
     2752(b)) is amended after the first sentence by inserting 
     ``To the extent that such amount is not adequate for removal 
     of a discharge or the mitigation or prevention of a 
     substantial threat of a discharge, the Coast Guard may borrow 
     from the Fund such sums as may be necessary, up to a maximum 
     of $100,000,000, and within 30 days shall notify Congress of 
     the amount borrowed and the facts and circumstances 
     necessitating the loan. Amounts borrowed shall be repaid to 
     the Fund when, and to the extent that removal costs are 
     recovered by the Coast Guard from responsible parties for the 
     discharge or substantial threat of discharge.''.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for 
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999. I would like to commend 
Senator Snowe, the Chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans and 
Fisheries, for her leadership on Coast Guard issues. Earlier in the 
year, Senator Snowe convened a hearing on the Coast Guard's fiscal year 
2000 budget request. The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified at the 
hearing and explained the priorities and challenges that the Coast 
Guard will face in the coming years and the ways that the agency will 
handle them.
  The Coast Guard is a branch of the armed forces and a multi-mission 
agency. The Coast Guard is responsible for our national defense, search 
and rescue services on our nation's waterways, maritime law 
enforcement, including drug interdiction and environmental protection, 
marine inspection, licensing, port safety and security, aids to 
navigation, waterways management, and boating safety. This bill will 
furnish the Coast Guard with funding authority to continue to provide 
the United States with high quality performance of its diverse duties 
through fiscal year 2001. I commend the men and women of the Coast 
Guard who serve their country with honor and distinction.
  I believe the bill that we have introduced today is an important 
first step in providing authorizing legislation for the Coast Guard for 
fiscal years 2000-2001. The funding levels are currently based on the 
Administration's transmitted legislative proposal. However, I am 
particularly concerned about the Coast Guard's ability to continue to 
fight the war on drugs. The vast majority of drugs enter our country 
illegally after being transported over our waterways. As the primary 
maritime law enforcement agency, the Coast Guard has proven that it can 
effectively stop drugs from reaching our streets. In fiscal year 1998, 
the Coast Guard seized 82,623 pounds of cocaine and 31,365 pounds of 
marijuana. Campaign STEEL WEB, the comprehensive, multi-year strategy 
to fight the war on drugs deserves full support and funding from both 
the Administration and the Congress. Before the Commerce Committee 
concludes its consideration of this bill, I intend to determine whether 
the Administration's bill will provide an adequate level of funding for 
the Coast Guard's drug interdiction activities. I will also seek to 
ensure that funding is spent on the most effective drug interdiction 
programs.
  The bill also incorporates several non-controversial provisions 
included in the Administration's bill which would provide for a variety 
of improvements for the day-to-day operation of the Coast Guard. I look 
forward to working with Senator Snowe and other members of the Commerce 
Committee during the Senate's consideration of the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, and Mr. 
        Lott):
  S. 1090. A bill to reauthorize and amend the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act of 1980; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


              the superfund program completion act of 1999

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Superfund 
Program Completion Act of 1999. This bill represents our efforts to 
focus on the areas where bipartisan consensus is achievable this year. 
The bill provides liability relief for many parties trapped in 
Superfund--in fact, it exempts or limits the liability of the vast bulk 
of all parties involved in Superfund litigation. The bill includes very 
strong provisions to facilitate the redevelopment of Brownfields, and 
it starts to wind down the Federal role in site cleanup, while 
enhancing the role of the states.
  The bill includes many provisions that have enjoyed widespread 
bipartisan support in the Senate. The Brownfields title will provide 
$100 million in grants for state, tribal and local governments to 
identify, assess and redevelop Brownfields sites. It protects 
prospective purchasers of contaminated sites, innocent owners of 
properties adjacent to the source of contamination, and innocent 
property owners who exercised due diligence upon purchase. These 
provisions have been included in past bills supported by Democrats and 
Republicans over the last six years.
  The bill exempts a number of parties from Superfund liability and 
incorporates provisions of S. 2180, the Superfund Recycling Equity Act 
of 1998, cosponsored last year by Senators Lott and Daschle, as well as 
64 other members of the Senate. Our bill exempts small businesses, 
contributors of very small amounts of hazardous waste, and contributors 
of small amounts of municipal solid waste. The bill limits the 
liability of larger generators or transporters of municipal solid 
waste, as well as owners or operators of co-disposal landfills where 
municipal solid waste is disposed. The bill limits the liability of so-
called de minimis parties--generally one percent contributors or less--
as well as municipalities and small businesses with a limited ability 
to pay.
  It is well known that Superfund liability--retroactive, strict, joint 
and several liability--often can be terribly unfair. It does not make 
any sense to make Superfund liability even more unfair to the parties 
who do not receive liability relief in this bill by merely shifting the 
share of the exempt or limited parties onto those that remain liable. 
This bill does not do that. Instead, where we grant liability relief, 
we direct EPA to use the taxes already collected from industry to pay 
the cost of the exemptions. This seems only fair.

  The bill also requires EPA to perform an impartial fair-share 
allocation at Superfund NPL sites and to give all parties an 
opportunity to settle for their allocated amount. In performing the 
allocation, EPA is directed to use the factors first proposed by Vice 
President Gore when he was serving in the House. EPA is given 
discretion to design the process, and parties that do not participate 
or settle remain liable to Superfund's underlying liability provisions, 
which remain unchanged except for those fortunate parties provided the 
new protections noted above.
  As EPA proudly boasts, cleanup is complete or underway at over 90 
percent of the sites on the current NPL. While it is cleaning up the 
sites at a rate of 85 per year, it has listed only an average of about 
26 per year. Last year, the General Accounting Office surveyed the 
states and EPA about the approximately 3,000 sites identified as

[[Page S5743]]

possible National Priority List sites, but not yet listed. Only 232 of 
these sites were identified by either EPA, a state, or both, as likely 
to be listed on the NPL. Clearly, this program is much closer to the 
end than in the beginning.
  This bill requires EPA to plan how it will proceed at those 3,000 
sites still awaiting a decision regarding listing. Everyone knows that 
the vast bulk of these sites will not be listed on the Superfund List, 
they will be cleaned up by the states, as the GAO report confirms. 
Under our bill, new listings on the National Priority List must be 
requested by the Governor of the affected state, and EPA is limited to 
listing 30 sites per year.
  The bill provides finality at sites cleaned up in state cleanup 
programs unless a state asks for help, fails to take action, or a true 
emergency is present. This will give greater confidence to prospective 
developers that state cleanup decisions will not be second-guessed by 
EPA. The bill strengthens state programs and starts to bring Superfund 
to an end.
  The bill makes EPA's authorization and appropriation process more 
transparent. There are separate line items for EPA's cleanup program--
the heart of the program--and all other activities such as Brownfields, 
support for research and development, Department of Justice 
enforcement, et cetera. No longer will increases in popular programs 
such as Brownfields come at the expense of the cleanup program. 
Authorization levels for the cleanup recognize that the program's 
workload is decreasing and will ramp down over time.
  The bill allows the program to be funded from either general revenues 
or the Trust Fund. It is my view that the Superfund taxes should not be 
reimposed, and I will strongly oppose their reimposition absent 
comprehensive Superfund reform that includes needed improvements to 
provisions governing natural resource damages, liability, and the 
cleanup process. To the extent that EPA improves its cost recovery 
performance and the Trust Fund balance exceeds levels needed to fund 
the liability relief provided in this bill, then that balance, instead 
of general revenues, can be used for Superfund cleanup.
  It is possible that EPA can recover enough past cleanup expenditures 
to pay for the full 5-year reauthorization program. Since the program's 
inception, EPA has spent approximately $15.9 billion on cleanup, the 
vast majority of it from industry-paid Superfund taxes deposited in the 
Trust Fund. Unfortunately, EPA has only recovered $2.4 billion of this 
total. Even discounting nearly $6.9 billion in expenditures that have 
been written-off by EPA or are no longer considered recoverable, there 
is approximately $6.6 billion that EPA could recover for the Trust 
Fund.

  It is well known that Senator Smith and I have long advocated 
comprehensive reform of the Superfund program. We have not abandoned 
that goal. However, in many ways, the bill we introduce today is more 
far-reaching than our efforts in the last two Congresses. Except for 
the liability provisions described above, the major focus of this bill 
is how to address sites not yet in the federal Superfund program. The 
Superfund Program Completion Act addresses the future of the Superfund 
program.
  The major reforms included in our previous efforts are not a part of 
the new bill. This bill does not address liability for damages to 
natural resources. The bill does not include liability relief for large 
responsible parties, such as federal funding of the fair shares 
attributed to bankrupt, defunct and insolvent parties. The bill does 
not make changes to Superfund's provisions regarding the conduct of 
cleanups.
  I still believe reforms are needed for natural resource damages, 
liability for large responsible parties, and the cleanup process. 
Unfortunately, the administration no longer supports legislative reform 
in these areas. Even in previous years, when the administration claimed 
to support such reforms, agreement was not possible. Given the remote 
prospects for concurrence on these issues, Senator Smith and I decided 
to set the issues aside for now and move forward with an agenda that we 
believe can generate bipartisan support.
  I cannot understand why anyone would fail to support this bill. It 
will accelerate Brownfields redevelopment. It will strengthen state 
programs in anticipation of the day we all know is coming--the day when 
the Superfund program becomes the small emergency program that was 
originally intended. It limits or eliminates the liability of many 
parties who were caught in Superfund's incredibly broad liability net, 
and it does so in a manner that is fair to those that are left. It does 
not undermine the so-called ``polluter pays'' principle, but in fact 
strengthens it by creating an incentive for EPA to improve its cost 
recovery performance.
  The committee will move forward quickly on this bill. The committee 
will hold hearings on the bill next week. We will work through the 
Memorial Day recess to address Members' concerns, then hold a markup 
within 10 days of returning from the recess. The bill will be ready for 
floor action prior to the July Fourth recess.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1090

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Superfund 
     Program Completion Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                  TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION

Sec. 101. Brownfields.
Sec. 102. Contiguous properties.
Sec. 103. Prospective purchasers and windfall liens.
Sec. 104. Safe harbor innocent landholders.

                   TITLE II--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS

Sec. 201. State response programs.
Sec. 202. National priorities list completion.
Sec. 203. Federal emergency removal authority.
Sec. 204. State cost share.

      TITLE III--FAIR SHARE LIABILITY ALLOCATIONS AND PROTECTIONS

Sec. 301. Liability exemptions and limitations.
Sec. 302. Expedited settlement for certain parties.
Sec. 303. Fair share settlements and statutory orphan shares.

                           TITLE IV--FUNDING

Sec. 401. Uses of Hazardous Substance Superfund.

                  TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION

     SEC. 101. BROWNFIELDS.

       Title I of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 127. BROWNFIELDS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Brownfield facility.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `brownfield facility' means 
     real property, the expansion or redevelopment of which is 
     complicated by the presence or potential presence of a 
     hazardous substance.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `brownfield facility' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) any portion of real property that, as of the date of 
     submission of an application for assistance under this 
     section, is the subject of an ongoing removal under title I;
       ``(ii) any portion of real property that has been listed on 
     the National Priorities List or is proposed for listing as of 
     the date of the submission of an application for assistance 
     under this section;
       ``(iii) any portion of real property with respect to which 
     cleanup work is proceeding in substantial compliance with the 
     requirements of an administrative order on consent, or 
     judicial consent decree that has been entered into, or a 
     permit issued by, the United States or a duly authorized 
     State under this Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6901 et seq.), section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321), the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.);
       ``(iv) a land disposal unit with respect to which--

       ``(I) a closure notification under subtitle C of the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) has been 
     submitted; and
       ``(II) closure requirements have been specified in a 
     closure plan or permit;

       ``(v) a facility that is owned or operated by a department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States; or
       ``(vi) a portion of a facility, for which portion, 
     assistance for response activity has been obtained under 
     subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et 
     seq.) from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
     established under section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.
       ``(C) Facilities other than brownfield facilities.--That a 
     facility may not be a brownfield facility within the meaning 
     of

[[Page S5744]]

     subparagraph (A) has no effect on the eligibility of the 
     facility for assistance under any provision of Federal law 
     other than this section.
       ``(2) Eligible entity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(i) a general purpose unit of local government;
       ``(ii) a land clearance authority or other quasi-
     governmental entity that operates under the supervision and 
     control of or as an agent of a general purpose unit of local 
     government;
       ``(iii) a government entity created by a State legislature;
       ``(iv) a regional council or group of general purpose units 
     of local government;
       ``(v) a redevelopment agency that is chartered or otherwise 
     sanctioned by a State;
       ``(vi) a State; and
       ``(vii) an Indian Tribe.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `eligible entity' does not 
     include any entity that is not in substantial compliance with 
     the requirements of an administrative order on consent, 
     judicial consent decree that has been entered into, or a 
     permit issued by, the United States or a duly authorized 
     State under this Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6901 et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 
     U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300f et seq.) with respect to any portion of real 
     property that is the subject of the administrative order on 
     consent, judicial consent decree, or permit.
       ``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development.
       ``(b) Brownfield Site Characterization and Assessment Grant 
     Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator shall 
     establish a program to provide grants for the site 
     characterization and assessment of brownfield facilities.
       ``(2) Assistance for site characterization and assessment 
     and response actions.--
       ``(A) In general.--On approval of an application made by an 
     eligible entity, the Administrator may make grants to the 
     eligible entity to be used for the site characterization and 
     assessment of 1 or more brownfield facilities.
       ``(B) Site characterization and assessment.--A site 
     characterization and assessment carried out with the use of a 
     grant under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) shall be performed in accordance with section 
     101(35)(B); and
       ``(ii) may include a process to identify and inventory 
     potential brownfield facilities.
       ``(c) Brownfield Remediation Grant Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment of program.--In consultation with the 
     Secretary, the Administrator shall establish a program to 
     provide grants to be used for response actions (excluding 
     site characterization and assessment) at 1 or more brownfield 
     facilities.
       ``(2) Assistance for response actions.--On approval of an 
     application made by an eligible entity, the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary, may make grants to the 
     eligible entity to be used for response actions (excluding 
     site characterization and assessment) at 1 or more brownfield 
     facilities.
       ``(d) General Provisions.--
       ``(1) Maximum grant amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The total of all grants under 
     subsections (b) and (c) shall not exceed, with respect to any 
     individual brownfield facility covered by the grants, 
     $350,000.
       ``(B) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the $350,000 
     limitation under subparagraph (A) based on the anticipated 
     level of contamination, size, or status of ownership of the 
     facility.
       ``(2) Prohibition.--
       ``(A) In general.--No part of a grant under this section 
     may be used for payment of penalties, fines, or 
     administrative costs.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--For the purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     the term `administrative cost' does not include the cost of--
       ``(i) investigation and identification of the extent of 
     contamination;
       ``(ii) design and performance of a response action; or
       ``(iii) monitoring of natural resources.
       ``(3) Audits.--The Inspector General of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall conduct such reviews or audits of 
     grants under this section as the Inspector General considers 
     necessary to carry out the objectives of this section. Audits 
     shall be conducted in accordance with the auditing procedures 
     of the General Accounting Office, including chapter 75 of 
     title 31, United States Code.
       ``(4) Leveraging.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this section may use the funds for part of a project at 
     a brownfield facility for which funding is received from 
     other sources, but the grant shall be used only for the 
     purposes described in subsection (b) or (c).
       ``(5) Agreements.--Each grant made under this section shall 
     be subject to an agreement that--
       ``(A) requires the eligible entity to comply with all 
     applicable State laws (including regulations);
       ``(B) requires that the eligible entity shall use the grant 
     exclusively for purposes specified in subsection (b) or (c);
       ``(C) in the case of an application by an eligible entity 
     under subsection (c), requires payment by the eligible entity 
     of a matching share (which may be in the form of a 
     contribution of labor, material, or services) of at least 20 
     percent of the costs of the response action for which the 
     grant is made, is from non-Federal sources of funding.
       ``(D) contains such other terms and conditions as the 
     Administrator determines to be necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(e) Grant Applications.--
       ``(1) Submission.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any eligible entity may submit an 
     application to the Administrator, through a regional office 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency and in such form as 
     the Administrator may require, for a grant under this section 
     for 1 or more brownfield facilities.
       ``(B) Coordination.--In developing application 
     requirements, the Administrator shall coordinate with the 
     Secretary and other Federal agencies and departments, such 
     that eligible entities under this section are made aware of 
     other available Federal resources.
       ``(C) Guidance.--The Administrator shall publish guidance 
     to assist eligible entities in obtaining grants under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Approval.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Secretary, shall make an annual evaluation of each 
     application received during the prior fiscal year and make 
     grants under this section to eligible entities that submit 
     applications during the prior year and that the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, determines 
     have the highest rankings under the ranking criteria 
     established under paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Ranking criteria.--The Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Secretary, shall establish a system for ranking 
     grant applications that includes the following criteria:
       ``(A) The extent to which a grant will stimulate the 
     availability of other funds for environmental remediation and 
     subsequent redevelopment of the area in which the brownfield 
     facilities are located.
       ``(B) The potential of the development plan for the area in 
     which the brownfield facilities are located to stimulate 
     economic development of the area on completion of the 
     cleanup, such as the following:
       ``(i) The relative increase in the estimated fair market 
     value of the area as a result of any necessary response 
     action.
       ``(ii) The demonstration by applicants of the intent and 
     ability to create new or expand existing business, 
     employment, recreation, or conservation opportunities on 
     completion of any necessary response action.
       ``(iii) If commercial redevelopment is planned, the 
     estimated additional full-time employment opportunities and 
     tax revenues expected to be generated by economic 
     redevelopment in the area in which a brownfield facility is 
     located.
       ``(iv) The estimated extent to which a grant would 
     facilitate the identification of or facilitate a reduction of 
     health and environmental risks.
       ``(v) The financial involvement of the State and local 
     government in any response action planned for a brownfield 
     facility and the extent to which the response action and the 
     proposed redevelopment is consistent with any applicable 
     State or local community economic development plan.
       ``(vi) The extent to which the site characterization and 
     assessment or response action and subsequent development of a 
     brownfield facility involves the active participation and 
     support of the local community.
       ``(vii) Such other factors as the Administrator considers 
     appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.
       ``(C) The extent to which a grant will enable the creation 
     of or addition to parks, greenways, or other recreational 
     property.
       ``(D) The extent to which a grant will meet the needs of a 
     community that has an inability to draw on other sources of 
     funding for environmental remediation and subsequent 
     redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield facility is 
     located because of the small population or low income of the 
     community.''.

     SEC. 102. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 107 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(o) Contiguous Properties.--
       ``(1) Not considered to be an owner or operator.--
       ``(A) In general.--A person that owns or operates real 
     property that is contiguous to or otherwise similarly 
     situated with respect to real property on which there has 
     been a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance 
     and that is or may be contaminated by the release shall not 
     be considered to be an owner or operator of a vessel or 
     facility under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) solely 
     by reason of the contamination if--
       ``(i) the person did not cause, contribute, or consent to 
     the release or threatened release;
       ``(ii) the person is not affiliated through any familial or 
     corporate relationship with any person that is or was a party 
     potentially responsible for response costs at the facility; 
     and
       ``(iii) the person exercised appropriate care with respect 
     to each hazardous substance found at the facility by taking 
     reasonable steps to stop any continuing release, prevent any 
     threatened future release and prevent or limit human or 
     natural resource exposure to any previously released 
     hazardous substance.
       ``(B) Ground water.--With respect to hazardous substances 
     in ground water beneath a

[[Page S5745]]

     person's property solely as a result of subsurface migration 
     in an aquifer from a source or sources outside the property, 
     appropriate care shall not require the person to conduct 
     ground water investigations or to install ground water 
     remediation systems.
       ``(2) Cooperation, assistance, and access.--A party 
     described in paragraph (1) may be considered an owner or 
     operator of a vessel or facility under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     of subsection (a) if the party has failed to substantially 
     comply with the requirement stated in section 122(p)(2)(H) 
     with respect to the facility.
       ``(3) Assurances.--The Administrator may--
       ``(A) issue an assurance that no enforcement action under 
     this Act will be initiated against a person described in 
     paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) grant a person described in paragraph (1) protection 
     against a cost recovery or contribution action under section 
     113(f).''.
       (b) National Priorities List.--
       (1) In general.--Section 105 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(8)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) provision that in listing a facility on the National 
     Priorities List, the Administrator shall not include any 
     parcel of real property at which no release has actually 
     occurred, but to which a released hazardous substance, 
     pollutant, or contaminant has migrated in ground water that 
     has moved through subsurface strata from another parcel of 
     real estate at which the release actually occurred, unless--
       ``(i) the ground water is in use as a public drinking water 
     supply or was in such use at the time of the release; and
       ``(ii) the owner or operator of the facility is liable, or 
     is affiliated with any other person that is liable, for any 
     response costs at the facility, through any direct or 
     indirect familial relationship, or any contractual, 
     corporate, or financial relationship other than that created 
     by the instruments by which title to the facility is conveyed 
     or financed.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Listing of Particular Parcels.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In subsection (a)(8)(C) and paragraph 
     (2) of this subsection, the term `parcel of real property' 
     means a parcel, lot, or tract of land that has a separate 
     legal description from that of any other parcel, lot, or 
     tract of land the legal description and ownership of which 
     has been recorded in accordance with the law of the State in 
     which it is located.
       ``(2) Statutory construction.--Nothing in subsection 
     (a)(8)(C) limits the Administrator's authority under section 
     104 to obtain access to and undertake response actions at any 
     parcel of real property to which a released hazardous 
     substance, pollutant, or contaminant has migrated in the 
     ground water.''.
       (2) Revision of National Priorities List.--Not later than 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     President shall revise the National Priorities List to 
     conform with the amendments made by paragraph (1).
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 107(a) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is amended by striking 
     ``of this section'' and inserting ``and the exemptions and 
     limitations stated in this section''.

     SEC. 103. PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS AND WINDFALL LIENS.

       (a) Definition of Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser.--Section 
     101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(39) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--The term `bona 
     fide prospective purchaser' means a person that acquires 
     ownership of a facility after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, or a tenant of such a person, that establishes 
     each of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
       ``(A) Disposal prior to acquisition.--All deposition of 
     hazardous substances at the facility occurred before the 
     person acquired the facility.
       ``(B) Inquiries.--
       ``(i) In general.--The person made all appropriate 
     inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the 
     facility and the facility's real property in accordance with 
     generally accepted good commercial and customary standards 
     and practices.
       ``(ii) Standards and practices.--The standards and 
     practices referred to in paragraph (35)(B)(ii) or those 
     issued or adopted by the Administrator under that paragraph 
     shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(iii) Residential use.--In the case of property for 
     residential or other similar use purchased by a 
     nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility 
     inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further 
     investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements 
     of this subparagraph.
       ``(C) Notices.--The person provided all legally required 
     notices with respect to the discovery or release of any 
     hazardous substances at the facility.
       ``(D) Care.--The person exercised appropriate care with 
     respect to each hazardous substance found at the facility by 
     taking reasonable steps to stop any continuing release, 
     prevent any threatened future release and prevent or limit 
     human or natural resource exposure to any previously released 
     hazardous substance.
       ``(E) Cooperation, assistance, and access.--The person has 
     not failed to substantially comply with the requirement 
     stated in section 122(p)(2)(H) with respect to the facility.
       ``(F) No affiliation.--The person is not affiliated through 
     any familial or corporate relationship with any person that 
     is or was a party potentially responsible for response costs 
     at the facility.''.
       (b) Amendment.--Section 107 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) (as amended by section 102) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--
       ``(1) Limitation on liability.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (a), a bona fide prospective purchaser whose potential 
     liability for a release or threatened release is based solely 
     on the purchaser's being considered to be an owner or 
     operator of a facility shall not be liable as long as the 
     bona fide prospective purchaser does not impede the 
     performance of a response action or natural resource 
     restoration.
       ``(2) Lien.--If there are unrecovered response costs at a 
     facility for which an owner of the facility is not liable by 
     reason of subsection (n)(1) and each of the conditions 
     described in paragraph (3) is met, the United States shall 
     have a lien on the facility, or may obtain from appropriate 
     responsible party a lien on any other property or other 
     assurances of payment satisfactory to the Administrator, for 
     such unrecovered costs.
       ``(3) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in paragraph 
     (1) are the following:
       ``(A) Response action.--A response action for which there 
     are unrecovered costs is carried out at the facility.
       ``(B) Fair market value.--The response action increases the 
     fair market value of the facility above the fair market value 
     of the facility that existed 180 days before the response 
     action was initiated.
       ``(C) Sale.--A sale or other disposition of all or a 
     portion of the facility has occurred.
       ``(4) Amount.--A lien under paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) shall not exceed the increase in fair market value of 
     the property attributable to the response action at the time 
     of a subsequent sale or other disposition of the property;
       ``(B) shall arise at the time at which costs are first 
     incurred by the United States with respect to a response 
     action at the facility;
       ``(C) shall be subject to the requirements of subsection 
     (l)(3); and
       ``(D) shall continue until the earlier of satisfaction of 
     the lien or recovery of all response costs incurred at the 
     facility.''.

     SEC. 104. SAFE HARBOR INNOCENT LANDHOLDERS.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 101(35) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(35)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the matter that precedes clause (i), by striking 
     ``deeds or'' and inserting ``deeds, easements, leases, or''; 
     and
       (B) in the matter that follows clause (iii)--
       (i) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the defendant''; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, 
     has provided full cooperation, assistance, and facility 
     access to the persons that are responsible for response 
     actions at the facility, including the cooperation and access 
     necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, and 
     maintenance of any complete or partial response action at the 
     facility, and has taken no action that impeded the 
     effectiveness or integrity of any institutional control 
     employed under section 121 at the facility.''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Reason to know.--
       ``(i) All appropriate inquiries.--To establish that the 
     defendant had no reason to know of the matter described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i), the defendant must show that--

       ``(I) at or prior to the date on which the defendant 
     acquired the facility, the defendant undertook all 
     appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of 
     the facility in accordance with generally accepted good 
     commercial and customary standards and practices; and
       ``(II) the defendant exercised appropriate care with 
     respect to each hazardous substance found at the facility by 
     taking reasonable steps to stop any continuing release, 
     prevent any threatened future release and prevent or limit 
     human or natural resource exposure to any previously released 
     hazardous substance.

       ``(ii) Standards and practices.--The Administrator shall by 
     regulation establish as standards and practices for the 
     purpose of clause (i)--

       ``(I) the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
     Standard E1527-94, entitled `Standard Practice for 
     Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site 
     Assessment Process'; or
       ``(II) alternative standards and practices under clause 
     (iii).

       ``(iii) Alternative standards and practices.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Administrator may by regulation 
     issue alternative standards

[[Page S5746]]

     and practices or designate standards developed by other 
     organizations than the American Society for Testing and 
     Materials after conducting a study of commercial and 
     industrial practices concerning the transfer of real property 
     in the United States.
       ``(II) Considerations.--In issuing or designating 
     alternative standards and practices under subclause (I), the 
     Administrator shall consider including each of the following:

       ``(aa) The results of an inquiry by an environmental 
     professional.
       ``(bb) Interviews with past and present owners, operators, 
     and occupants of the facility and the facility's real 
     property for the purpose of gathering information regarding 
     the potential for contamination at the facility and the 
     facility's real property.
       ``(cc) Reviews of historical sources, such as chain of 
     title documents, aerial photographs, building department 
     records, and land use records to determine previous uses and 
     occupancies of the real property since the property was first 
     developed.
       ``(dd) Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens, 
     filed under Federal, State, or local law, against the 
     facility or the facility's real property.
       ``(ee) Reviews of Federal, State, and local government 
     records (such as waste disposal records), underground storage 
     tank records, and hazardous waste handling, generation, 
     treatment, disposal, and spill records, concerning 
     contamination at or near the facility or the facility's real 
     property.
       ``(ff) Visual inspections of the facility and facility's 
     real property and of adjoining properties.
       ``(gg) Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of 
     the defendant.
       ``(hh) The relationship of the purchase price to the value 
     of the property if the property was uncontaminated.
       ``(ii) Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
     information about the property.
       ``(jj) The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely 
     presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to 
     detect such contamination by appropriate investigation.
       ``(iv) Site inspection and title search.--In the case of 
     property for residential use or other similar use purchased 
     by a nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility 
     inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further 
     investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements 
     of this subparagraph.''.
       (b) Standards and Practices.--
       (1) Establishment by regulation.--The Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall issue the regulation 
     required by section 101(35)(B)(ii) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (as added by subsection (a)) not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Interim standards and practices.--Until the 
     Administrator issues the regulation described in paragraph 
     (1), in making a determination under section 101(35)(B)(i) of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (as added by subsection (a)), there 
     shall be taken into account--
       (A) any specialized knowledge or experience on the part of 
     the defendant;
       (B) the relationship of the purchase price to the value of 
     the property if the property was uncontaminated;
       (C) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information 
     about the property;
       (D) the degree of obviousness of the presence or likely 
     presence of contamination at the property; and
       (E) the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate 
     investigation.

                   TITLE II--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as amended by section 103(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(40) Facility subject to state cleanup.--The term 
     `facility subject to State cleanup' means a facility that--
       ``(A) is not listed or proposed for listing on the National 
     Priorities List; and
       ``(B)(i) has been archived from the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
     Information System;
       ``(ii) was included on the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System 
     before the date of enactment of this section and is not 
     listed or proposed for listing on the National Priorities 
     List within 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     section; or
       ``(iii) is added to the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System 
     after the date of enactment of this section, if at least 2 
     years have elapsed since the earlier of--
       ``(I) inclusion of the facility on the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
     Information System; or
       ``(II) issuance at the facility of an order under section 
     106(a).
       ``(41) Qualifying state response program.--The term 
     `qualifying State response program' means a State program 
     that includes the elements described in section 128(b).''.
       (b) Qualifying State Response Programs.--Title I of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) (as amended by 
     section 101(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 128. QUALIFYING STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Assistance to States.--The Administrator shall 
     provide grants to States to establish and expand qualifying 
     State response programs that include the elements listed in 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Elements.--The elements of a qualifying State 
     response program are the following:
       ``(1) Oversight and enforcement authorities or other 
     mechanisms that are adequate to ensure that--
       ``(A) response actions will protect human health and the 
     environment and be conducted in accordance with applicable 
     Federal and State law; and
       ``(B) in the case of a voluntary response action, if the 
     person conducting the voluntary response action fails to 
     complete the necessary response activities, including 
     operation and maintenance or long-term monitoring activities, 
     the necessary response activities are completed.
       ``(2) Adequate opportunities for public participation, 
     including prior notice and opportunity for comment in 
     appropriate circumstances, in selecting response actions.
       ``(3) Mechanisms for approval of a response action plan, or 
     a requirement for certification or similar documentation from 
     the State to the person conducting a response action 
     indicating that the response is complete.
       ``(c) Enforcement in Cases of a Release Subject to a State 
     Plan.--
       ``(1) Enforcement.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     in the case of a release or threatened release of a hazardous 
     substance at a facility subject to State cleanup, neither the 
     President nor any other person may use any authority under 
     this Act to take an enforcement action against any person 
     regarding any matter that is within the scope of a response 
     action that is being conducted or has been completed under 
     State law.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--The President may bring an enforcement 
     action under this Act with respect to a facility described in 
     subparagraph (A) if--
       ``(i) the enforcement action is authorized under section 
     104;
       ``(ii) the State requests that the President provide 
     assistance in the performance of a response action and that 
     the enforcement bar in subparagraph (A) be lifted;
       ``(iii) at a facility at which response activities are 
     ongoing the Administrator--

       ``(I) makes a written determination that the State is 
     unwilling or unable to take appropriate action, after the 
     Administrator has provided the Governor notice and an 
     opportunity to cure; and
       ``(II) the Administrator determines that the release or 
     threat of release constitutes a public health or 
     environmental emergency under section 104(a)(4);

       ``(iv) the Administrator determines that contamination has 
     migrated across a State line, resulting in the need for 
     further response action to protect human health or the 
     environment; or
       ``(v) in the case of a facility at which all response 
     actions have been completed, the Administrator--

       ``(I) makes a written determination that the State is 
     unwilling or unable to take appropriate action, after the 
     Administrator has provided the Governor notice and an 
     opportunity to cure; and
       ``(II) makes a written determination that the facility 
     presents a substantial risk that requires further remediation 
     to protect human health or the environment, as evidenced by--

       ``(aa) newly discovered information regarding contamination 
     at the facility;
       ``(bb) the discovery that fraud was committed in 
     demonstrating attainment of standards at the facility; or
       ``(cc) a failure of the remedy under the State remedial 
     action plan or a change in land use giving rise to a clear 
     threat of exposure.
       ``(C) EPA notification.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a facility at which there 
     is a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, 
     pollutant, or contaminant and for which the Administrator 
     intends to undertake an administrative or enforcement action, 
     the Administrator, prior to taking the administrative or 
     enforcement action, shall notify the State of the action the 
     Administrator intends to take and wait for an acknowledgment 
     from the State under clause (ii).
       ``(ii) State response.--Not later than 48 hours after 
     receiving a notice from the Administrator under clause (i), 
     the State shall notify the Administrator if the facility is 
     currently or has been subject to a State remedial action 
     plan.
       ``(iii) Public health or environmental emergency.--If the 
     Administrator finds that a release or threatened release 
     constitutes a public health or environmental emergency under 
     section 104(a)(4), the Administrator may take appropriate 
     action immediately after giving notification under clause (i) 
     without waiting for State acknowledgment.
       ``(2) Cost or damage recovery actions.--Paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to an action brought by a State, Indian Tribe, or 
     general purpose unit of local government for the recovery of 
     costs or damages under this Act.
       ``(3) Savings provision.--
       ``(A) Existing agreements.--A memorandum of agreement, 
     memorandum of understanding, or similar agreement between

[[Page S5747]]

     the President and a State or Indian tribe defining Federal 
     and State or tribal response action responsibilities that was 
     in effect as of the date of enactment of this section with 
     respect to a facility to which paragraph (1)(C) does not 
     apply shall remain effective until the agreement expires in 
     accordance with the terms of the agreement.
       ``(B) New agreements.--Nothing in this subsection precludes 
     the President from entering into an agreement with a State or 
     Indian tribe regarding responsibility at a facility to which 
     paragraph (1)(C) does not apply.''.

     SEC. 202. NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST COMPLETION.

       Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is 
     amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) National Priorities List Completion.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the President shall complete the 
     evaluation of all facilities classified as awaiting a 
     National Priorities List decision to determine the risk or 
     danger to public health or welfare or the environment posed 
     by each facility as compared with the other facilities.
       ``(2) Maximum number.--For fiscal years 2000 through 2004, 
     the President shall add a maximum of 30 facilities to the 
     National Priorities List on an annual basis.
       ``(3) Requirement of request by the governor of a state.--
     No facility shall be added to the National Priorities List 
     without the President having first received a written 
     communication from the Governor of the State in which the 
     facility is located requesting that the facility be added.''.

     SEC. 203. FEDERAL EMERGENCY REMOVAL AUTHORITY.

       Section 104(c)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9604(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``consistent with the 
     remedial action to be taken'' and inserting ``not 
     inconsistent with any remedial action that has been selected 
     or is anticipated at the time of any removal action at a 
     facility,'';
       (2) by striking ``$2,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$5,000,000''; and
       (3) by striking ``12 months'' and inserting ``3 years''.

     SEC. 204. STATE COST SHARE.

       Section 104(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(c)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(c)(1) Unless'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Miscellaneous Limitations and Requirements.--
       ``(1) Continuance of obligations from fund.--Unless'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``taken obligations'' and 
     inserting ``taken, obligations'';
       (3) by striking ``(2) The President'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Consultation.--The President''; and
       (4) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) State cost share.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall not provide any 
     funding for remedial action under this section unless the 
     State in which the release occurs first enters into a 
     contract or cooperative agreement with the Administrator that 
     provides assurances that the State will pay, in cash or 
     through in-kind contributions, 10 percent of the costs of--
       ``(i) the remedial action; and
       ``(ii) operation and maintenance costs.
       ``(B) Activities with respect to which state cost share is 
     required.--No State cost share shall be required except for 
     remedial actions under this section.
       ``(C) Indian tribes.--The requirements of this paragraph 
     shall not apply in the case of remedial action to be taken on 
     land or water--
       ``(i) held by an Indian Tribe;
       ``(ii) held by the United States in trust for an Indian 
     Tribe;
       ``(iii) held by a member of an Indian Tribe (if the land or 
     water is subject to a trust restriction on alienation); or
       ``(iv) within the borders of an Indian reservation.

      TITLE III--FAIR SHARE LIABILITY ALLOCATIONS AND PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 301. LIABILITY EXEMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as amended by section 201(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(42) Codisposal landfill.--The term `codisposal landfill' 
     means a landfill that--
       ``(A) was listed on the National Priorities List as of the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph;
       ``(B) received for disposal municipal solid waste or sewage 
     sludge; and
       ``(C) may also have received, before the effective date of 
     requirements under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.), any hazardous waste, if the 
     landfill contains predominantly municipal solid waste or 
     sewage sludge that was transported to the landfill from 
     outside the facility.
       ``(43) Municipal solid waste.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `municipal solid waste' means 
     waste material generated by--
       ``(i) a household (such as a single- or multi-family 
     residence) or a public lodging (such as a hotel or motel); or
       ``(ii) a commercial, institutional, or industrial source, 
     to the extent that--

       ``(I) the waste material is substantially similar to waste 
     normally generated by a household or public lodging (without 
     regard to differences in volume); or
       ``(II) the waste material is collected and disposed of with 
     other municipal solid waste or sewage sludge and, regardless 
     of when generated, would be conditionally exempt small 
     quantity generator waste under the regulation issued under 
     section 3001(d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6921(d)).

       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste' 
     includes food and yard waste, paper, clothing, appliances, 
     consumer product packaging, disposable diapers, office 
     supplies, cosmetics, glass and metal food containers, 
     elementary or secondary school science laboratory waste, and 
     household hazardous waste.
       ``(C) Exclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste' does 
     not include combustion ash generated by resource recovery 
     facilities or municipal incinerators or waste from 
     manufacturing or processing (including pollution control) 
     operations that is not described in subclause (I) or (II).
       ``(44) Municipality.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `municipality' means a 
     political subdivision of a State (including a city, county, 
     village, town, township, borough, parish, school district, 
     sanitation district, water district, or other public entity 
     performing local governmental functions).
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `municipality' includes a 
     natural person acting in the capacity of an official, 
     employee, or agent of any entity described in subparagraph 
     (A) in the performance of a governmental function.
       ``(45) Sewage sludge.--The term `sewage sludge' means 
     solid, semisolid, or liquid residue removed during the 
     treatment of municipal waste water, domestic sewage, or other 
     waste water at or by publicly owned treatment works.''.
       (b) Exemptions and Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 107 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) (as amended by section 103(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(q) Liability Exemption for Municipal Solid Waste and 
     Sewage Sludge.--No person shall be liable to the United 
     States or to any other person (including liability for 
     contribution) under this section for any response costs at a 
     facility listed on the National Priorities List to the extent 
     that--
       ``(1) the person is liable solely under paragraph (3) or 
     (4) of subsection (a); and
       ``(2) the person is--
       ``(A) an owner, operator, or lessee of residential property 
     from which all of the person's municipal solid waste was 
     generated;
       ``(B) a business entity that, during the tax year preceding 
     the date of transmittal of written notification that the 
     business is potentially liable, employs not more than 100 
     individuals; or
       ``(C) a nonprofit organization described in section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that employs 
     not more than 100 individuals, from which all of the person's 
     municipal solid waste was generated.
       ``(r) De Micromis Contributor Exemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a vessel or facility 
     listed on the National Priorities List, no person described 
     in paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a) shall be liable to 
     the United States or to any other person (including liability 
     for contribution) for any response costs under this section 
     if the activity specifically attributable to the person 
     resulted in the disposal or treatment of not more than 200 
     pounds or 110 gallons of material containing a hazardous 
     substance at the vessel or facility before the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, or such greater amount as the 
     Administrator may determine by regulation.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a case 
     in which the Administrator determines that material described 
     in paragraph (1) has contributed or may contribute 
     significantly, individually, to the amount of response costs 
     at the facility.
       ``(s) Small Business Exemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--No person shall be liable to the United 
     States or to any person (including liability for 
     contribution) under this section for any response costs at a 
     facility listed on the National Priorities List if--
       ``(A) the person is a business that--
       ``(i) during the taxable year preceding the date of 
     transmittal of notification that the business is a 
     potentially responsible party, had full- and part-time 
     employees whose combined time was equivalent to 75 or fewer 
     full-time employees; or
       ``(ii) for that taxable year reported $3,000,000 or less in 
     gross revenue;
       ``(B) the activity specifically attributable to the person 
     resulted in the disposal or treatment of material containing 
     a hazardous substance at the vessel or facility before the 
     date of enactment of this subsection; and
       ``(C) the person is not affiliated through any familial or 
     corporate relationship with any person that is or was a party 
     potentially responsible for response costs at the facility.

[[Page S5748]]

       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a case 
     in which the material containing a hazardous substance 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) contributed significantly or 
     could contribute significantly to the cost of the response 
     action with respect to the facility.
       ``(t) Municipal Solid Waste and Sewage Sludge Exemption and 
     Limitations.--
       ``(1) Contribution of municipal solid waste and municipal 
     sewage sludge.--
       ``(A) In general.--The condition stated in this 
     subparagraph is that the liability of the potentially 
     responsible party is for response costs based on paragraph 
     (3) or (4) of section 107(a) and on the potentially 
     responsible party's having arranged for disposal or treatment 
     of, arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or 
     treatment of, or accepted for transport for disposal or 
     treatment of, municipal solid waste or municipal sewage 
     sludge at a facility listed on the National Priorities List.
       ``(B) Settlement amount.--
       ``(i) In general.--The President shall offer a settlement 
     to a party referred to in clause (i) with respect to 
     liability under paragraph (3) or (4) of section 107(a) on the 
     basis of a payment of $5.30 per ton of municipal solid waste 
     or municipal sewage sludge that the President estimates is 
     attributable to the party.
       ``(ii) Revision.--

       ``(I) In general.--The President may revise the settlement 
     amount under clause (i) by regulation.
       ``(II) Basis.--A revised settlement amount under subclause 
     (I) shall reflect the estimated per-ton cost of closure and 
     post-closure activities at a representative facility 
     containing only municipal solid waste.

       ``(C) Conditions.--The provisions for settlement described 
     in this subparagraph shall not apply with respect to a 
     facility where there is no waste except municipal solid waste 
     or municipal sewage sludge.
       ``(D) Adjustment for inflation.--The Administrator may by 
     guidance periodically adjust the settlement amount under 
     subparagraph (B) to reflect changes in the Consumer Price 
     Index (or other appropriate index, as determined by the 
     Administrator).
       ``(2) Municipal owners and operators.--
       ``(A) Aggregate liability of large municipalities.--
       ``(i) In general.--With respect to a codisposal landfill 
     that is owned or operated in whole or in part by 
     municipalities with a population of 100,000 or more 
     (according to the 1990 census), and that is not subject to 
     the criteria for solid waste landfills published under 
     subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et 
     seq.) at part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (or a successor regulation), the aggregate amount of 
     liability of such municipal owners and operators for response 
     costs under this section shall be not greater than 20 percent 
     of such costs.
       ``(ii) Increased amount.--The President may increase the 
     percentage under clause (i) to not more than 35 percent with 
     respect to a municipality if the President determines that 
     the municipality committed specific acts that exacerbated 
     environmental contamination or exposure with respect to the 
     facility.
       ``(iii) Decreased amount.--The President may decrease the 
     percentage under clause (i) with respect to a municipality to 
     not less than 10 percent if the President determines that the 
     municipality took specific acts of mitigation during the 
     operation of the facility to avoid environmental 
     contamination or exposure with respect to the facility.
       ``(B) Aggregate liability of small municipalities.--
       ``(i) In general.--With respect to a codisposal landfill 
     that is owned or operated in whole or in part by 
     municipalities with a population of less than 100,000 
     (according to the 1990 census), that is not subject to the 
     criteria for solid waste landfills published under subtitle D 
     of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) at 
     part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a 
     successor regulation), the aggregate amount of liability of 
     such municipal owners and operators for response costs under 
     this section shall be not greater than 10 percent of such 
     costs.
       ``(ii) Increased amount.--The President may increase the 
     percentage under clause (i) to not more than 20 percent with 
     respect to a municipality if the President determines that 
     the municipality committed specific acts that exacerbated 
     environmental contamination or exposure with respect to the 
     facility.
       ``(iii) Decreased amount.--The President may decrease the 
     percentage under clause (i) with respect to a municipality to 
     not less than 5 percent if the President determines that the 
     municipality took specific acts of mitigation during the 
     operation of the facility to avoid environmental 
     contamination or exposure with respect to the facility.
       ``(3) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply to--
       ``(A) a person that acted in violation of subtitle C of the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) at a 
     facility that is subject to a response action under this 
     title, if the violation pertains to a hazardous substance the 
     release of threat of release of which caused the incurrence 
     of response costs at the facility;
       ``(B) a person that owned or operated a codisposal landfill 
     in violation of the applicable requirements for municipal 
     solid waste landfill units under subtitle D of the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) after October 9, 
     1991, if the violation pertains to a hazardous substance the 
     release of threat of release of which caused the incurrence 
     of response costs at the facility; or
       ``(C) a person under section 122(p)(2)(G).
       ``(4) Performance of response actions.--As a condition of a 
     settlement with a municipality under this subsection, the 
     President may require that the municipality perform or 
     participate in the performance of the response actions at the 
     facility.
       ``(5) Notice of applicability.--The President shall provide 
     a potentially responsible party with notice of the potential 
     applicability of this section in each written communication 
     with the party concerning the potential liability of the 
     party.
       ``(u) Recycling Transactions.--
       ``(1) Liability clarification.--As provided in paragraphs 
     (2), (3), (4), and (5), a person who arranged for recycling 
     of recyclable material shall not be liable under paragraph 
     (3) or (4) of subsection (a) with respect to the material.
       ``(2) Recyclable material defined.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `recyclable material' means scrap paper, 
     scrap plastic, scrap glass, scrap textiles, scrap rubber 
     (other than whole tires), scrap metal, or spent lead-acid, 
     spent nickel-cadmium, and other spent batteries, as well as 
     minor amounts of material incident to or adhering to the 
     scrap material as a result of its normal and customary use 
     prior to becoming scrap; except that such term shall not 
     include shipping containers of a capacity from 30 liters to 
     3,000 liters, whether intact or not, having any hazardous 
     substance (but not metal bits and pieces or hazardous 
     substance that form an integral part of the container) 
     contained in or adhering thereto.
       ``(3) Transactions involving scrap paper, plastic, glass, 
     textiles, or rubber.--Transactions involving scrap paper, 
     scrap plastic, scrap glass, scrap textiles, or scrap rubber 
     (other than whole tires) shall be deemed to be arranging for 
     recycling if the person who arranged for the transaction (by 
     selling recyclable material or otherwise arranging for the 
     recycling of recyclable material) can demonstrate by a 
     preponderance of the evidence that all of the following 
     criteria were met at the time of the transaction:
       ``(A) The recyclable material met a commercial 
     specification grade.
       ``(B) A market existed for the recyclable material.
       ``(C) A substantial portion of the recyclable material was 
     made available for use as feedstock for the manufacture of a 
     new saleable product.
       ``(D) The recyclable material could have been a replacement 
     or substitute for a virgin raw material, or the product to be 
     made from the recyclable material could have been a 
     replacement or substitute for a product made, in whole or in 
     part, from a virgin raw material.
       ``(E) For transactions occurring 90 days or more after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the person exercised 
     reasonable care to determine that the facility where the 
     recyclable material was handled, processed, reclaimed, or 
     otherwise managed by another person (hereinafter in this 
     subsection referred to as a `consuming facility') was in 
     compliance with substantive (not procedural or 
     administrative) provisions of any Federal, State, or local 
     environmental law or regulation, or compliance order or 
     decree issued pursuant thereto, applicable to the handling, 
     processing, reclamation, storage, or other management 
     activities associated with recyclable material.
       ``(F) For purposes of this paragraph, `reasonable care' 
     shall be determined using criteria that include (but are not 
     limited to)--
       ``(i) the price paid in the recycling transaction;
       ``(ii) the ability of the person to detect the nature of 
     the consuming facility's operations concerning its handling, 
     processing, reclamation, or other management activities 
     associated with recyclable material; and
       ``(iii) the result of inquiries made to the appropriate 
     Federal, State, or local environmental agency (or agencies) 
     regarding the consuming facility's past and current 
     compliance with substantive (not procedural or 
     administrative) provisions of any Federal, State, or local 
     environmental law or regulation, or compliance order or 
     decree issued pursuant thereto, applicable to the handling, 
     processing, reclamation, storage, or other management 
     activities associated with the recyclable material. For the 
     purposes of this subparagraph, a requirement to obtain a 
     permit applicable to the handling, processing, reclamation, 
     or other management activity associated with the recyclable 
     materials shall be deemed to be a substantive provision.
       ``(4) Transactions involving scrap metal.--
       ``(A) Transactions involving scrap metal shall be deemed to 
     be arranging for recycling if the person who arranged for the 
     transaction (by selling recyclable material or otherwise 
     arranging for the recycling of recyclable material) can 
     demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that at the 
     time of the transaction--
       ``(i) the person met the criteria set forth in paragraph 
     (3) with respect to the scrap metal;
       ``(ii) the person was in compliance with any applicable 
     regulations or standards regarding the storage, transport, 
     management, or other activities associated with the recycling 
     of scrap metal that the Administrator promulgates under the 
     Solid Waste Disposal

[[Page S5749]]

     Act subsequent to the enactment of this subsection and with 
     regard to transactions occurring after the effective date of 
     such regulations or standards; and
       ``(iii) the person did not melt the scrap metal prior to 
     the transaction.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii), melting of 
     scrap metal does not include the thermal separation of 2 or 
     more materials due to differences in their melting points 
     (referred to as `sweating').
       ``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `scrap 
     metal' means--
       ``(i) bits and pieces of metal parts (e.g., bars, turnings, 
     rods, sheets, wire) or metal pieces that may be combined 
     together with bolts or soldering (e.g., radiators, scrap 
     automobiles, railroad box cars), which when worn or 
     superfluous can be recycled; and
       ``(ii) notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(iii), metal 
     byproducts from copper and copper-based alloys that--

       ``(I) are not 1 of the primary products of a secondary 
     production process;
       ``(II) are not solely or separately produced by the 
     production process;
       ``(III) are not stored in a pile or surface impoundment; 
     and
       ``(IV) are sold to another recycler that is not 
     speculatively accumulating such metal byproducts;

     except for scrap metals that the Administrator excludes from 
     this definition by regulation.
       ``(5) Transactions involving batteries.--Transactions 
     involving spent lead-acid batteries, spent nickel-cadmium 
     batteries, or other spent batteries shall be deemed to be 
     arranging for recycling if the person who arranged for the 
     transaction (by selling recyclable material or otherwise 
     arranging for the recycling of recyclable material) can 
     demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that at the 
     time of the transaction--
       ``(A) the person met the criteria set forth in paragraph 
     (3) with respect to the spent lead-acid batteries, spent 
     nickel-cadmium batteries, or other spent batteries, but the 
     person did not recover the valuable components of such 
     batteries; and
       ``(B)(i) with respect to transactions involving lead-acid 
     batteries, the person was in compliance with applicable 
     Federal environmental regulations or standards, and any 
     amendments thereto, regarding the storage, transport, 
     management, or other activities associated with the recycling 
     of spent lead-acid batteries;
       ``(ii) with respect to transactions involving nickel-
     cadmium batteries, Federal environmental regulations or 
     standards are in effect regarding the storage, transport, 
     management, or other activities associated with the recycling 
     of spent nickel-cadmium batteries, and the person was in 
     compliance with applicable regulations or standards or any 
     amendments thereto; or
       ``(iii) with respect to transactions involving other spent 
     batteries, Federal environmental regulations or standards are 
     in effect regarding the storage, transport, management, or 
     other activities associated with the recycling of such 
     batteries, and the person was in compliance with applicable 
     regulations or standards or any amendments thereto.
       ``(6) Exclusions.--
       ``(A) The exemptions set forth in paragraphs (3), (4), and 
     (5) shall not apply if--
       ``(i) the person had an objectively reasonable basis to 
     believe at the time of the recycling transaction--

       ``(I) that the recyclable material would not be recycled;

       ``(II) that the recyclable material would be burned as 
     fuel, or for energy recovery or incineration; or
       ``(III) for transactions occurring before 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection, that the consuming 
     facility was not in compliance with a substantive (not 
     procedural or administrative) provision of any Federal, 
     State, or local environmental law or regulation, or 
     compliance order or decree issued pursuant thereto, 
     applicable to the handling, processing, reclamation, or other 
     management activities associated with the recyclable 
     material;

       ``(ii) the person had reason to believe that hazardous 
     substances had been added to the recyclable material for 
     purposes other than processing for recycling;
       ``(iii) the person failed to exercise reasonable care with 
     respect to the management and handling of the recyclable 
     material (including adhering to customary industry practices 
     current at the time of the recycling transaction designed to 
     minimize, through source control, contamination of the 
     recyclable material by hazardous substances); or
       ``(iv) with respect to any item of a recyclable material, 
     the item contained polychlorinated biphenyls at a 
     concentration in excess of 50 parts per million or any new 
     standard promulgated pursuant to applicable Federal laws.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, an objectively 
     reasonable basis for belief shall be determined using 
     criteria that include (but are not limited to) the size of 
     the person's business, customary industry practices 
     (including customary industry practices current at the time 
     of the recycling transaction designed to minimize, through 
     source control, contamination of the recyclable material by 
     hazardous substances), the price paid in the recycling 
     transaction, and the ability of the person to detect the 
     nature of the consuming facility's operations concerning its 
     handling, processing, reclamation, or other management 
     activities associated with the recyclable material.
       ``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, a requirement to 
     obtain a permit applicable to the handling, processing, 
     reclamation, or other management activities associated with 
     recyclable material shall be deemed to be a substantive 
     provision.''.
       (2) Transition rules.--
       (A) In general.--The exemptions under subsections (q), (r), 
     and (s) of section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9607(q), 9607(r), 9607(s)) (as added by paragraph (1)) shall 
     not apply to any settlement or judgment approved by a United 
     States Federal District Court--
       (i) before the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (ii) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (B) Effect on pending or concluded actions.--The exemptions 
     provided in subsection (u) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9607(u)) (as added by paragraph (1)) shall not affect any 
     concluded judicial or administrative action or any pending 
     judicial action initiated by the United States prior to the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Service Station Dealers.--Section 114(c) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9614(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``No person'' and inserting ``A person'';
       (B) by striking ``may recover'' and inserting ``may not 
     recover'';
       (C) by striking ``if such recycled oil'' and inserting 
     ``unless the service station dealer''; and
       (D) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) mixed the recycled oil with any other hazardous 
     substance; or
       ``(B) did not store, treat, transport, or otherwise manage 
     the recycled oil in compliance with any applicable 
     regulations or standards promulgated under section 3014 of 
     the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6935) and other 
     applicable authorities that were in effect on the date of 
     such activity.''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (4).

     SEC. 302. EXPEDITED SETTLEMENT FOR CERTAIN PARTIES.

       (a) Parties Eligible.--Section 122(g) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9622(g)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the subsection heading and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(g) Expedited Final Settlement.--'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
       (B) by striking ``(1)'' and all that follows through 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Parties eligible.--
       ``(A) In general.--As expeditiously as practicable, the 
     President shall--
       ``(i) notify each potentially responsible party that meets 
     1 or more of the conditions stated in subparagraphs (B), (C), 
     and (D) of the party's eligibility for a settlement; and
       ``(ii) offer to reach a final administrative or judicial 
     settlement with the party.
       ``(B) De minimis contribution.--The condition stated in 
     this subparagraph is that the liability is for response costs 
     based on paragraph (3) or (4) of section 107(a) and the 
     party's contribution of a hazardous substance at a facility 
     is de minimis. For the purposes of this subparagraph, a 
     potentially responsible party's contribution shall be 
     considered to be de minimis only if the President determines 
     that both of the following criteria are met:
       ``(i) Minimal amount of material.--The amount of material 
     containing a hazardous substance contributed by the 
     potentially responsible party to the facility is minimal 
     relative to the total amount of material containing hazardous 
     substances at the facility. The amount of a potentially 
     responsible party's contribution shall be presumed to be 
     minimal if the amount is 1 percent or less of the total 
     amount of material containing a hazardous substance at the 
     facility, unless the Administrator promptly identifies a 
     greater threshold based on site-specific factors.
       ``(ii) Hazardous effects.--The material containing a 
     hazardous substance contributed by the potentially 
     responsible party does not present toxic or other hazardous 
     effects that are significantly greater than the toxic or 
     other hazardous effects of other material containing a 
     hazardous substance at the facility.'';
       (C) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (A))--
       (i) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iii) as 
     subclauses (I) through (III), respectively, and adjusting the 
     margins appropriately;
       (ii) by striking ``(C) The potentially responsible party'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(C) Owners of real property.--
       ``(i) In general.--The condition stated in this 
     subparagraph is that the potentially responsible party''; and
       (iii) by striking ``This subparagraph (B)'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(ii) Applicability.--Clause (i)''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Reduction in settlement amount based on limited 
     ability to pay.--
       ``(i) In general.--The condition stated in this 
     subparagraph is that--

[[Page S5750]]

       ``(I) the potentially responsible party is--

       ``(aa) a natural person;
       ``(bb) a small business; or
       ``(cc) a municipality;

       ``(II) the potentially responsible party demonstrates an 
     inability to pay or has only a limited ability to pay 
     response costs, as determined by the Administrator under a 
     regulation promulgated by the Administrator, after--

       ``(aa) public notice and opportunity for comment; and
       ``(bb) consultation with the Administrator of the Small 
     Business Administration and the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development; and

       ``(III) in the case of a potentially responsible party that 
     is a small business, the potentially responsible party does 
     not qualify for the small business exemption under section 
     107(s) because of the application of section 107(s)(2).

       ``(ii) Small businesses.--

       ``(I) Definition of small business.--In this subparagraph, 
     the term `small business' means a business entity that--

       ``(aa) during the taxable year preceding the date of 
     transmittal of notification that the business is a 
     potentially responsible party, had full- and part-time 
     employees whose combined time was equivalent to that of 75 or 
     fewer full-time employees or for that taxable year reported 
     $3,000,000 or less in gross revenue; and
       ``(bb) is not affiliated through any familial or corporate 
     relationship with any person that is or was a party 
     potentially responsible for response costs at the facility.

       ``(II) Considerations.--At the request of a small business, 
     the President shall take into consideration the ability of 
     the small business to pay response costs and still maintain 
     its basic business operations, including--

       ``(aa) consideration of the overall financial condition of 
     the small business; and
       ``(bb) demonstrable constraints on the ability of the small 
     business to raise revenues.

       ``(III) Information.--A small business requesting 
     settlement under this paragraph shall promptly provide the 
     President with all information needed to determine the 
     ability of the small business to pay response costs.
       ``(IV) Determination.--A small business shall demonstrate 
     the extent of its ability to pay response costs, and the 
     President shall perform any analysis that the President 
     determines may assist in demonstrating the impact of a 
     settlement on the ability of the small business to maintain 
     its basic operations. The President, in the discretion of the 
     President, may perform such an analysis for any other party 
     or request the other party to perform the analysis.
       ``(V) Alternative payment methods.--If the President 
     determines that a small business is unable to pay its total 
     settlement amount immediately, the President shall consider 
     such alternative payment methods as may be necessary or 
     appropriate.

       ``(iii) Municipalities.--

       ``(I) Considerations.--The President shall consider the 
     inability or limited ability to pay of a municipality to the 
     extent that the municipality provides information with 
     respect to--

       ``(aa) the general obligation bond rating and information 
     about the most recent bond issue for which the rating was 
     prepared;
       ``(bb) the amount of total available funds (other than 
     dedicated funds or State assistance payments for remediation 
     of inactive hazardous waste sites);
       ``(cc) the amount of total operating revenues (other than 
     obligated or encumbered revenues);
       ``(dd) the amount of total expenses;
       ``(ee) the amounts of total debt and debt service;
       ``(ff) per capita income and cost of living;
       ``(gg) real property values;
       ``(hh) unemployment information; and
       ``(ii) population information.

       ``(II) Evaluation of impact.--A municipality may submit for 
     consideration by the President an evaluation of the potential 
     impact of the settlement on the provision of municipal 
     services and the feasibility of making delayed payments or 
     payments over time.
       ``(III) Risk of default or violation.--A municipality may 
     establish an inability to pay for purposes of this 
     subparagraph by showing that payment of its liability under 
     this Act would--

       ``(aa) create a substantial demonstrable risk that the 
     municipality would default on debt obligations existing as of 
     the time of the showing, go into bankruptcy, be forced to 
     dissolve, or be forced to make budgetary cutbacks that would 
     substantially reduce the level of protection of public health 
     and safety; or
       ``(bb) necessitate a violation of legal requirements or 
     limitations of general applicability concerning the 
     assumption and maintenance of fiscal municipal obligations.

       ``(IV) Other factors relevant to settlements with 
     municipalities.--In determining an appropriate settlement 
     amount with a municipality under this subparagraph, the 
     President may consider other relevant factors, including the 
     fair market value of any in-kind services that the 
     municipality may provide to support the response action at 
     the facility.

       ``(iv) Other potentially responsible parties.--This 
     subparagraph does not affect the President's authority to 
     evaluate the ability to pay of a potentially responsible 
     party other than a natural person, small business, or 
     municipality or to enter into a settlement with such other 
     party based on that party's ability to pay.
       ``(E) Additional conditions for expedited settlements.--
       ``(i) Basis of determination.--If the President determines 
     that a potentially responsible party is not eligible for 
     settlement under this paragraph, the President shall state 
     the reasons for the determination in writing to any 
     potentially responsible party that requests a settlement 
     under this paragraph.''.
       (b) Settlement Offers.--Section 122(g) of the Comprehensive 
     Environment Response, Liability, and Compensation Act of 1980 
     (42 U.S.C. 9622(g)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) Settlement offers.--
       ``(A) Notification.--As soon as practicable after receipt 
     of sufficient information to make a determination, the 
     Administrator shall notify any person that the Administrator 
     determines is eligible under paragraph (1) of the person's 
     eligibility for the expedited final settlement.
       ``(B) Offers.--As soon as practicable after receipt of 
     sufficient information, the Administrator shall submit a 
     written settlement offer to each person that the 
     Administrator determines, based on information available to 
     the Administrator at the time at which the determination is 
     made, to be eligible for a settlement under paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Information.--At the time at which the Administrator 
     submits an offer under paragraph (1), the Administrator 
     shall, at the request of the recipient of the offer, make 
     available to the recipient any information available under 
     section 552 of title 5, United States Code, on which the 
     Administrator bases the settlement offer, and if the 
     settlement offer is based in whole or in part on information 
     not available under that section, so inform the recipient.''.

     SEC. 303. FAIR SHARE SETTLEMENTS AND STATUTORY ORPHAN SHARES.

       (a) In General.--Section 122 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9622) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(n) Fair Share Allocation.--
       ``(1) Process.--The President shall conduct an impartial 
     fair share allocation of response costs at National Priority 
     List facilities.
       ``(2) Factors.--In conducting an allocation under this 
     subsection, the President, without regard to any theory of 
     joint and several liability, shall estimate the fair share of 
     each potentially responsible party using principles of 
     equity, the best information reasonably available to the 
     President, and the following factors:
       ``(A) the quantity of hazardous substances contributed by 
     each party;
       ``(B) the degree of toxicity of hazardous substances 
     contributed by each party;
       ``(C) the mobility of hazardous substances contributed by 
     each party;
       ``(D) the degree of involvement of each party in the 
     generation, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal 
     of hazardous substances;
       ``(E) the degree of care exercised by each party with 
     respect to hazardous substances, taking into account the 
     characteristics of the hazardous substances;
       ``(F) the cooperation of each party in contributing to any 
     response action and in providing complete and timely 
     information to the United States or the allocator; and
       ``(G) such other equitable factors as the President 
     considers appropriate.
       ``(3) Scope.--A fair share allocation under this subsection 
     shall include any response costs at a National priorities 
     List facility that are not addressed in a settlement or a 
     judgment approved by a United States Federal District Court--
       ``(A) before the date of enactment of this subsection; or
       ``(B) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection.
       ``(4) Settlements based on allocations.--
       ``(A) In general.--A party may settle any liability to the 
     United States for response costs under this Act for its 
     allocated fair share, including a reasonable risk premium 
     that reflects uncertainties existing at the time of 
     settlement.
       ``(B) Completion of obligations.--A person that is 
     undertaking a response action under an administrative order 
     issued under section 106 or has entered into a settlement 
     decree with the United States of a State as of the date of 
     enactment of this subsection shall complete the person's 
     obligations under the order or settlement decree.
       ``(5) Unfunded and unattributable shares.--Any share 
     attributable to an insolvent, defunct, or bankrupt party, or 
     a share that cannot be attributed to any particular party, 
     shall be allocated among any responsible parties not 
     described in subsection (q), (r), (s), (t), or (u) of section 
     107 or section 122(g).
       ``(o) Statutory Orphan Shares.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     statutory orphan share is the difference between--
       ``(A) the liability of a party described in subsection (q), 
     (s), (t), or (u) of section 107 or section 122(g); and
       ``(B) the President's estimate of the liability of the 
     party, notwithstanding any exemption from or limitation on 
     liability in this Act.
       ``(2) Determination of statutory orphan shares.--

[[Page S5751]]

       ``(A) In general.--The President shall include an estimate 
     of the statutory orphan share of a party described in section 
     107(t) or section 122(g), based on the best information 
     reasonably available to the President, at any time at which 
     the President seeks judicial approval of a settlement with 
     the party.
       ``(3) Transition rule and subsequent settlements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each settlement presented for judicial 
     approval on or after the date that is 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection shall include an estimate of 
     the statutory orphan share for each party described in 
     subsection (q), (s), and (u) of section 107 that is involved 
     in the settlement.
       ``(B) Subsequent settlements.--The President shall include 
     in a subsequent settlement at the same facility a revised 
     statutory orphan share estimate if the President--
       ``(i) determines that the subsequent settlement includes a 
     new statutory orphan share; or
       ``(ii) has good cause to revise an earlier statutory orphan 
     share estimate.
       ``(4) Final settlements.--
       ``(A) In general.--A judicially-approved consent decree or 
     settlement shall identify the total statutory orphan share 
     owing for a facility if the consent decree or settlement--
       ``(i) includes remedial project construction for the last 
     operable unit at the facility; or
       ``(ii) provides funding for remedial project construction 
     described in clause (i).
       ``(B) Funding and reimbursement.--A consent decree or 
     settlement described in subparagraph (A) shall include full 
     funding of any statutory orphan shares in accordance with 
     this section.
       ``(5) Hazardous substance superfund.--A statutory orphan 
     share constitutes an obligation of the Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund.
       ``(p) General Provisions Applicable to Statutory Orphan 
     Shares and Fair Share Settlements.--
       ``(1) In general.--A fair share settlement under subsection 
     (g) and a statutory orphan share under subsection (n) shall 
     be subject to paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Provisions applicable to statutory orphan shares and 
     fair share settlements.--
       ``(A) Stay of litigation and enforcement.--
       ``(i) In general.--All contribution and cost recovery 
     actions under this Act against each party described in 
     sections 107(t) and 122(g) are stayed until the Administrator 
     offers those parties a settlement.
       ``(ii) Suspension of statute of limitations.--Any statute 
     of limitations applicable to an action described in clause 
     (i) is suspended during the period that a stay under this 
     subparagraph is in effect.
       ``(B) Failure or inability to comply.--If the President 
     fails to fund a statutory orphan share, reimburse a party as 
     required by subsection (g), or include a statutory orphan 
     share estimate in any settlement when required to do so under 
     this Act, the President shall not--
       ``(i) issue any new order under section 106 at the facility 
     to any non-Federal party; or
       ``(ii) commence or maintain any new or existing action to 
     recover response costs at the facility.
       ``(C) Amounts owed.--
       ``(i) Hazardous substance superfund management.--The 
     President may provide partial reimbursement payments to a 
     party on a schedule that ensures an equitable distribution of 
     reimbursement payments to all eligible parties on a timely 
     basis.
       ``(ii) Priority.--The priority for reimbursement shall be 
     based on the length of time that has passed since the 
     settlement between the United States and the party.
       ``(iii) Payment from funds made available for subsequent 
     fiscal years.--Any amounts payable in excess of available 
     appropriations in any fiscal year shall be paid from amounts 
     made available for subsequent fiscal years, along with 
     interest on the unpaid balances at the rate equal to that of 
     the current average market yield on outstanding marketable 
     obligations of the United States with a maturity of 1 year.
       ``(D) Contribution protection.--
       ``(i) In general.--A settlement under this subsection, 
     section 107(t), or section 122(g) shall provide complete 
     protection from all claims for contribution or cost recovery 
     for response costs that are addressed in the allocation under 
     subsection (n).
       ``(ii) Costs beyond scope of allocation.--In the case of 
     response costs at a facility that, as a result of a prior, 
     judicially-approved settlement at the facility, are not 
     within the scope of an allocation under subsection (n), a 
     party shall retain the right to seek cost recovery or 
     contribution from any other party in accordance with the 
     prior settlement, except that no party may seek contribution 
     for any response costs at the facility from--

       ``(I) a party described in subsection (q), (r), (s), or (u) 
     of section 107; or
       ``(II) a party that has settled its liability under section 
     107(t) or 122(g).

       ``(E) Liability for attorney's fees for certain actions.--A 
     person that, after the date of enactment of this subsection, 
     commences a civil action for contribution under this Act 
     against a person that is not liable by operation of 
     subsections (q), (r), (s), or (u) of section 107, or has 
     resolved its liability to the United States under subsection 
     (n), section 107(t), or 122(g), shall be liable to that 
     person for all reasonable costs of defending the action, 
     including all reasonable attorney's fees and expert witness 
     fees.
       ``(F) Illegal activities.--Subsections (q), (r), (s), (t), 
     and (u) of section 107 and section 122(g) shall not apply 
     to--
       ``(i) any person whose liability for response costs under 
     section 107(a) is otherwise based on any act, omission, or 
     status that is determined by a court or administrative body 
     of competent jurisdiction, within the applicable statute of 
     limitation, to have been a violation of any Federal or State 
     law pertaining to the treatment, storage, disposal, or 
     handling of hazardous substances if the violation pertains to 
     a hazardous substance, the release or threat of release of 
     which caused the incurrence of response costs at the vessel 
     or facility;
       ``(ii) a person described in section 107(o); or
       ``(iii) a bona fide prospective purchaser.
       ``(G) Exception.--
       ``(i) In general.--The President may decline to reimburse 
     or offer a settlement to a potentially responsible party 
     under subsections (g) and (n) or section 122(g) if the 
     President makes a decision concerning a reimbursement or 
     offer of a settlement under clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Requirements for reimbursement or offer of a 
     settlement.--A potentially responsible party may be denied a 
     reimbursement or settlement under clause (i)--

       ``(I) to the extent that the person or entity has 
     operational control over a vessel or facility, if--

       ``(aa) the person or entity fails to provide full 
     cooperation to, assistance to, and access to the vessel or 
     facility to persons that are responsible for response actions 
     at the vessel or facility (including the cooperation and 
     access necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, 
     and maintenance of any complete or partial response actions 
     at the vessel or facility); or
       ``(bb) the person or entity acts in such a way as to impede 
     the effectiveness or integrity of any institutional control 
     employed at the vessel or facility; or

       ``(II) if the person or entity fails to comply with any 
     request for information or administrative subpoena issued by 
     the President under this Act.

       ``(H) Basis of determination.--If the President determines 
     that a potentially responsible party is not eligible for 
     settlement under this paragraph, the President shall state 
     the reasons for the determination in writing to any 
     potentially responsible party that requests a settlement 
     under this paragraph.
       ``(I) Waiver.--
       ``(i) Response costs in allocation.--A party that settles 
     its liability under this subsection waives the right to seek 
     cost recovery or contribution under this Act for any response 
     costs that are addressed in the allocation.
       ``(ii) Response costs of facility.--A party that settles 
     its liability under subsection 107(t) or section 122(g) 
     waives its right to seek cost recovery or contribution under 
     this Act for any response costs at the facility.
       ``(J) Performance of response actions.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the President may require, as a condition of settlement under 
     subsection (n) and section 107(t), that 1 or more parties 
     conduct a response action at the facility.
       ``(ii) Reimbursement.--

       ``(I) In general.--The President shall reimburse a party 
     described in subparagraph (A) for costs incurred in excess of 
     the party's allocated fair share.
       ``(II) Pro rata reimbursement.--The President shall provide 
     equitable pro rata reimbursement to such parties on at least 
     an annual basis.

       ``(iii) Response actions.--No party described in 
     subsections (q), (r), (s), or (u) of section 107 or 122(g) 
     may be required to perform a response action as a condition 
     of settlement or ordered to conduct a response action under 
     section 106.
       ``(K) Judicial review.--
       ``(i) In general.--A court shall not approve any settlement 
     under this Act unless the settlement includes an estimate of 
     the statutory orphan share that is fair, reasonable and 
     consistent with this Act.
       ``(ii) Statutory orphan share settlement.--If a court 
     determines that an estimate of a statutory orphan share is 
     not fair, reasonable, or consistent with this Act, the court 
     may--

       ``(I) approve the settlement; and
       ``(II) disapprove and remand the estimate of the statutory 
     orphan share.''.

       (b) Regulations.--The President shall issue regulations to 
     implement this title not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

                           TITLE IV--FUNDING

     SEC. 401. USES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND.

       (a) In General.--The Comprehensive Environmental Response 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 is amended by 
     striking sections 111 and 112 (42 U.S.C. 9611, 9612) and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 111. USES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Hazardous Substance Fund for the purposes specified 
     in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) not more than 
     $1,000,000,000 for the 5-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of the Superfund Program Completion Act of 1999.

[[Page S5752]]

       ``(B) Response actions.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Hazardous Substance Superfund for the 
     performance of response actions the amounts described in 
     paragraph (2)(C).
       ``(2) Specific uses.--The President shall use amounts 
     appropriated out of the Hazardous Substance Superfund only--
       ``(A) to enter into mixed funding agreements in accordance 
     with section 122;
       ``(B) to reimburse a party for response costs incurred in 
     excess of the allocated share of the party as described in a 
     final settlement under section 122; and
       ``(C) for the performance of response actions to the extent 
     that the total amount in the Hazardous Substance Superfund is 
     greater than--
       ``(i) in fiscal year 2000, $1,000,000,000;
       ``(ii) in fiscal year 2001, $800,000,000;
       ``(iii) in fiscal year 2002, $600,000,000;
       ``(iv) in fiscal year 2003, $400,000,000; and
       ``(v) in fiscal year 2004, $200,000,000.
       ``(b) Claims Against Hazardous Substance Superfund.--
       ``(1) In general.--Claims against the Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund shall not be valid or paid in excess of the total 
     amount in the Hazardous Substance Superfund at any 1 time.
       ``(2) Validity of claims exceeding amount in hazardous 
     substance superfund.--Claims against the Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund in excess of the total amount in the Hazardous 
     Substance Superfund shall become valid only when additional 
     amounts are collected for, appropriated for, or otherwise 
     added to the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
       ``(3) Insufficient balance.--
       ``(A) In general.--The President shall not issue an order 
     or seek to recover costs for a response action at a facility 
     if the amount in the Hazardous Substance Superfund is 
     insufficient to enable the President to enter into an 
     agreement or reimburse a party at the facility under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(B) Authorization of appropriations.--If sufficient funds 
     are unavailable in the Hazardous Substance Superfund to 
     satisfy claims or to enter into agreements, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such amounts as are necessary 
     to make such payments.
       ``(4) No limitation of authority.--Nothing in this 
     subsection limits the authority of the President to act under 
     section 104.
       ``(c) Regulations.--
       ``(1) Obligation of funds.--The President may promulgate 
     regulations designating 1 or more Federal officials that may 
     obligate amounts in the Hazardous Substance Superfund in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Notice to potential injured parties.--
       ``(A) In general.--The President shall promulgate 
     regulations with respect to the notice that shall be provided 
     to potential injured parties by an owner and operator of any 
     vessel or facility from which a hazardous substance has been 
     released.
       ``(B) Substance.--The regulations under subparagraph (A) 
     shall describe the notice that would be appropriate to carry 
     out this title.
       ``(C) Compliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--On promulgation of regulations under 
     subparagraph (A), an owner and operator described in that 
     subparagraph shall provide notice in accordance with the 
     regulations.
       ``(ii) Pre-promulgation releases.--In the case of a release 
     of a hazardous substance that occurs before regulations under 
     subparagraph (A) are promulgated, an owner and operator 
     described in that subparagraph shall provide reasonable 
     notice of any release to potential injured parties by 
     publication in local newspapers serving the affected area.
       ``(iii) Releases from public vessels.--The President shall 
     provide such notification as is appropriate to potential 
     injured parties with respect to releases from public vessels.
       ``(d) Natural Resources.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     funds may not be used under this Act for the restoration, 
     rehabilitation, or replacement or acquisition of the 
     equivalent of any natural resource until a plan for the use 
     of the funds for those purposes has been developed and 
     adopted, after adequate public notice and opportunity for 
     hearing and consideration of all public comment, by--
       ``(A) affected Federal agencies;
       ``(B) the Governor of each State that sustained damage to 
     natural resources that are within the borders of, belong to, 
     are managed by, or appertain to the State; and
       ``(C) the governing body of any Indian tribe that sustained 
     damage to natural resources that--
       ``(i) are within the borders of, belong to, are managed by, 
     appertain to, or are held in trust for the benefit of the 
     tribe; or
       ``(ii) belong to a member of the tribe, if those resources 
     are subject to a trust restriction on alienation.
       ``(2) Emergency action exemption.--Funds may be used under 
     this Act for the restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement 
     or acquisition of the equivalent of any natural resource only 
     in circumstances requiring action to--
       ``(A) avoid an irreversible loss of a natural resource;
       ``(B) prevent or reduce any continuing danger to a natural 
     resource; or
       ``(C) prevent the loss of a natural resource in an 
     emergency situation similar to those described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       ``(e) Post-Closure Liability Fund.--The President shall use 
     the amounts in the Post-closure Liability Fund for--
       ``(1) any of the purposes specified in subsection (a) with 
     respect to a hazardous waste disposal facility for which 
     liability has been transferred to the Post-closure Liability 
     Fund under section 107(k); and
       ``(2) payment of any claim or appropriate request for costs 
     of a response, damages, or other compensation for injury or 
     loss resulting from a release of a hazardous substance from a 
     facility described in paragraph (1) under--
       ``(A) section 107; or
       ``(B) any other Federal or State law.
       ``(f) Inspector General.--
       ``(1) Audit.--In each fiscal year, the Inspector General of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct an annual 
     audit of--
       ``(A) all agreements and reimbursements under subsection 
     (a); and
       ``(B) all other activities of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency under this Act.
       ``(2) Report.--The Inspector General of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall submit to Congress an annual report 
     that--
       ``(A) describes the results of the audit under paragraph 
     (1); and
       ``(B) contains such recommendations as the Inspector 
     General considers to be appropriate.
       ``(g) Foreign Claims.--To the extent that this Act permits, 
     a foreign claimant may assert a claim to the same extent that 
     a United States claimant may assert a claim if--
       ``(1) the release of a hazardous substance occurred--
       ``(A) in the navigable waters of a foreign country of which 
     the claimant is a resident; or
       ``(B) in or on the territorial sea or adjacent shoreline of 
     a foreign country described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(2) the claimant is not otherwise compensated for the 
     loss of the claimant;
       ``(3) the hazardous substance was released from a facility 
     or vessel located adjacent to or within the navigable waters 
     under the jurisdiction of, or was discharged in connection 
     with activities conducted under--
       ``(A) section 20(a)(2) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2)); or
       ``(B) the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 et 
     seq.); and
       ``(4)(A) recovery is authorized by a treaty or an executive 
     agreement between the United States and the foreign country; 
     or
       ``(B) the Secretary of State, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General and other appropriate officials, certifies 
     that the foreign country provides a comparable remedy for 
     United States claimants.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations Out of the General 
     Fund.--
       ``(1) Removal and response actions.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency out 
     of the general fund of the Treasury or from the Hazardous 
     Substance Superfund, in accordance with section 111(a)(2)(C), 
     to conduct removal and response actions under this Act:
       ``(A) For fiscal year 2000, $900,000,000.
       ``(B) For fiscal year 2001, $875,000,000.
       ``(C) For fiscal year 2002, $850,000,000.
       ``(D) For fiscal year 2003, $825,000,000.
       ``(E) For fiscal year 2004, $800,000,000.
       ``(2) Health assessments and health consultations.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to the Agency for Toxic 
     Substances and Disease Registry to conduct health assessments 
     and health consultations under this Act, and for 
     epidemiologic and laboratory studies, preparation of 
     toxicologic profiles, development and maintenance of a 
     registry of persons exposed to hazardous substances to allow 
     long-term health effects studies, and diagnostic services not 
     otherwise available to determine whether persons in 
     populations exposed to hazardous substances in connection 
     with a release or suspected release are suffering from long-
     latency diseases:
       ``(A) For fiscal year 2000, $60,000,000.
       ``(B) For fiscal year 2001, $55,000,000.
       ``(C) For fiscal year 2002, $55,000,000.
       ``(D) For fiscal year 2003, $50,000,000.
       ``(E) For fiscal year 2004, $50,000,000.
       ``(3) Hazardous substance research, demonstration, and 
     training.--
       ``(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     not more than the following amounts for the purposes of 
     section 311(a):
       ``(i) For fiscal year 2000, $40,000,000.
       ``(ii) For fiscal year 2001, $40,000,000.
       ``(iii) For fiscal year 2002, $40,000,000.
       ``(iv) For each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004, $40,000,000.
       ``(B) Training limitation.--Not more than 15 percent of the 
     amounts appropriated under subparagraph (A) shall be used for 
     training under section 311(a) for any fiscal year.
       ``(C) University hazardous substance research centers.--Not 
     more than $5,000,000 of the amounts available in the 
     Hazardous Substance Superfund may be used in any of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2004 for the purposes of section 311(d).
       ``(4) Brownfield grant programs.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to carry out section 127 $100,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
       ``(5) Qualifying state response programs.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to maintain, establish, and 
     administer qualifying State response programs during the 
     first 5 full fiscal years following

[[Page S5753]]

     the date of enactment of this paragraph under a formula 
     established by the Administrator, $100,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
       ``(6) Department of justice.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Attorney General for the enforcement of 
     this Act--
       ``(A) for fiscal year 2000, $30,000,000;
       ``(B) for fiscal year 2001, $28,000,000;
       ``(C) for fiscal year 2002, $26,000,000;
       ``(D) for fiscal year 2003, $24,000,000; and
       ``(E) for fiscal year 2004, $22,000,000.
       ``(7) Prohibition of transfer.--None of the funds 
     authorized to be appropriated under this subsection may be 
     transferred to any other Federal agency.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Response actions.--Section 104(c) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(c)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``obligations from the 
     Fund, other than those authorized by subsection (b) of this 
     section,'' and inserting ``, such response actions''; and
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``shall be from funds 
     received by the Fund from amounts recovered on behalf of such 
     fund under this Act'' and inserting ``shall be from 
     appropriations out of the general fund of the Treasury''.
       (2) Information gathering and analysis.--Section 105(g)(4) 
     of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605(g)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``expenditure of monies from the Fund for''.
       (3) President.--Section 107(c)(3) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(c)(3)) is amended in the first sentence 
     by striking ``Fund'' and inserting ``President''.
       (4) Other liability.--Section 109(d) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9609(d)) is amended by striking the second 
     sentence.
       (5) Source of funding.--Section 119(c)(3) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9619(c)(3)) is amended--
       (A) in the second sentence, by striking ``For purposes of 
     section 111, amounts'' and inserting ``Amounts''; and
       (B) in the third sentence--
       (i) by striking ``If sufficient funds are unavailable in 
     the Hazardous Substance Superfund established under 
     subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1954 to make payments pursuant to such indemnification or if 
     the Fund is repealed, there'' and inserting ``There``; and
       (ii) by striking ``payments'' and inserting 
     ``expenditures''.
       (6) Remedial action using hazardous substance superfund.--
     Section 121(d)(4)(F) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9621(d)(4)(F)) is amended--
       (A) by striking `` using the Fund''; and
       (B) by striking ``amounts from the Fund'' and inserting 
     ``funds''.
       (7) Availability of funding.--Section 122(f)(4)(F) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9622(f)(4)(F)) is amended by 
     striking ``the Fund or other sources of''.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am pleased to join the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in 
introducing the Superfund Program Completion Act of 1999. This is a 
good day for the environment and for the American taxpayer, because 
this bill addresses many of the problems in Superfund that have wasted 
resources and delayed the cleanup of hazardous waste sites across the 
country.
  Since I became chairman of the Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
Assessment Subcommittee in 1995, I have had one overriding goal with 
respect to Superfund reform: To increase cleanups by decreasing the 
unfairness of the law.
  By now, most are well aware of Superfund's dismal history. The 
program was created in 1980 to clean up abandoned hazardous waste 
sites. Begun with the best of intentions, Superfund has failed to meet 
even minimal expectations. Despite public and private expenditures of 
more than $40 billion dollars, less than 14% of approximately 1,300 
sites have been cleaned up and removed from the National Priorities 
List over the last nineteen years.
  The primary reason for this abysmal performance is Superfund's 
retroactive, strict, joint and several liability scheme. Under joint 
and several liability, the EPA or a private party can seek to hold any 
other potentially responsible party liable for the entire cleanup cost 
at a site--regardless of the type of contamination, when the material 
was disposed of, or whether the activity was legal at the time. Joint 
and several liability allows the government or a larger polluter to 
legally extort payments far in excess of a company's true share of 
responsibility for waste at a site.
  Most reasonable people would agree that such a liability scheme is 
simply unfair. Worse yet, this unfairness has significantly hindered 
progress in cleaning up sites and wasted vast amounts of taxpayer 
funding. As one might expect, when a company is faced with paying 100% 
of the costs at a site for which their true liability may be less than 
10%, that company will delay, negotiate, and litigate at every stop of 
the process. That, unfortunately, is the well-documented history of 
Superfund.
  It is important to recognize that this unfairness is not confined to 
EPA's enforcement of the law. EPA merely begins the process at most 
sites by targeting one or more large parties who are potentially 
responsible for cleanup. Then those parties typically turn around and 
sue tens or hundreds of other parties--average citizens, small 
businesses, schools, churches, and others who face huge legal bills and 
years of expensive litigation if they don't pay up.
  My position on this issue has been constant: I believe that 
retroactive, strict, joint and several liability is fundamentally 
unfair. If I had my way, I would repeal it today. Some of my colleagues 
see things differently, however, and the bill we introduce today 
represents a reasonable resolution of conflicting views on that topic.
  While our legislation does not go as far as many would like, I 
believe it goes as far as we can if we are interested in passing a bill 
this Administration will sign into law. There's an old saying around 
here: ``Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'' That is 
certainly the case with Superfund and the legislation we introduce 
today. This is a good bill. It will make a profound and positive 
difference in the lives of millions of Americans. It is a bill that can 
pass the Senate on a strong bi-partisan basis; and it is a bill that 
the President should sign into law.
  The Superfund Program Completion Act makes major reforms in six 
areas. Specifically, the SPCA:
  Directs EPA to finish the job that was started nearly two decades ago 
by completing the evaluation of the 3,000 remaining sites on the CERCLA 
Information System (CERCLIS).
  Clearly allocates responsibility between states and EPA for future 
cleanups.
  Protects municipalities, small business, recyclers, and other parties 
from unfair liability--while making the system fairer for everyone 
else.
  Provides states $100 million per year and full authority for their 
own cleanup programs.
  Revitalizes communities with $100 million in annual brownfields 
redevelopment grants.
  Requires fiscal responsibility by EPA and saves taxpayers money.
  Our legislation will result in more hazardous waste sites being 
cleaned up--and in fewer dollars being wasted on litigation. It will 
give much-needed and much-deserved liability relief to innocent 
landowners, contiguous property owners, prospective purchasers, 
municipalities, small businesses and recyclers. Unlike EPA's 
administrative reforms, this bill does not shift costs from politically 
popular parties to those left holding the bag. Instead, it requires 
payment of a statutory orphan share and authorizes the use of the 
Superfund Trust Fund for those shares.

  For those left trapped in the Superfund liability scheme, the SPCA 
requires an allocation process to determine a party's fair share in an 
expedited settlement--instead of fighting it out for years in court.
  In addition to increasing fairness, the SPCA provides much needed 
guidance and direction to a sometimes wayward EPA. It recognizes and 
builds upon the growth and strength of State hazardous waste cleanup 
programs. It provides new resources to States and localities for their 
cleanup and redevelopment efforts. As many of my colleagues know, the 
fear of Superfund liability has resulted in an estimated 450,000 
abandoned or underutilized properties, or ``Brownfields,'' that lay 
fallow because private developers and municipalities don't want to be 
dragged into Superfund's litigation quagmire. With new resources and 
appropriate liability protections, our bill will allow the cleanup of 
those sites, spurring economic redevelopment in cities, towns, and 
rural areas across America.
  We take a different approach to the brownfields redevelopment issue 
than

[[Page S5754]]

the Administration seeks. Along with many of my colleagues, I believe 
that economic redevelopment is primarily a State and local issue. Our 
approach provides the resources and freedom States need to make 
progress on this front, rather than giving EPA new authority to get 
into the commercial real estate and redevelopment business. That is not 
EPA's role, nor should it be. Where EPA does have a role is in 
identifying and addressing risks at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. 
Our legislation ensures that EPA regains its focus on that mission.
  Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that 
``completion of construction at existing sites'' and reducing new 
entries into the program was the Environmental Protection Agency's top 
Superfund priority. Unfortunately, EPA's narrow focus on generating 
construction completion statistics appears to have diverted resources 
from EPA's fundamental mission--protecting human health and the 
environment from releases of hazardous waste.
  GAO reported last year that there are still 3,000 sites awaiting a 
National Priorities List decision by EPA, most of which have been in 
the CERCLIS inventory for more than a decade. According to the report, 
however, more than 1,200 of those sites are actually ineligible for 
listing on the NPL, for a variety of reasons. Some of the sites were 
classified erroneously, while others either do not require cleanup, 
have already been cleaned up, or have final cleanup underway. EPA's 
failure to remove the specter of an NPL listing at these sites has 
likely caused significant economic and social harm to the surrounding 
communities. EPA needs to focus on that task.
  In addition, far too many of the sites that are still potentially 
eligible for listing have received little or no attention from EPA. EPA 
admitted taking no cleanup action at all at 336 sites and provided no 
information for another 48 sites. The only action taken at 719 sites 
was an initial site assessment. EPA's inattention may be due to the 
fact that EPA and state officials together identified only 232 of the 
sites as worthy of being added to the NPL. In that case, however, the 
appropriate response is to archive the sites while ensuring that any 
necessary cleanup occurs under some other Federal or state program. EPA 
needs to focus on that task as well.
  Unforfunately, there is also disagreement between EPA and state 
officials about even those 232 sites. EPA identified 132 that may be 
listed on the NPL in the future, but state officials agreed on only 26 
of those. Conversely, state officials identified a different group of 
100 sites as worthy of an NPL listing in the future.
  EPA agreed with GAO's recommendation that it ``develop a joint 
strategy'' with the States for addressing these sites. After nearly 20 
years and $20 billion in taxpayer funded EPA appropriations, it is 
disturbing that the agency only now is developing such a strategy. 
Nonetheless, Congress has an obligation to provide direction and 
assistance to EPA in this effort. The Superfund Program Completion Act 
provides that direction by:
  Requiring EPA to finish evaluating and/or archiving old sites stuck 
in the CERCLIS inventory, correcting the current imbalance between 
evaluating uncontrolled sites and amassing construction completed 
statistics.
  Providing EPA with a schedule of 30 NPL listings per year, to ensure 
that it and the States appropriately allocate sites for cleanup under 
Superfund, RCRA, or State response programs.
  Increasing current law limits on EPA removal actions to provide 
greater flexibility in responding to sites that at least initially 
should be the responsibility of the Federal government, but ultimately 
do not require an NPL listing.
  These provisions will ensure that the limited universe of sites 
remaining in the Superfund pipeline are dealt with quickly and safely.
  In addition to keeping EPA focused on the task at hand, our bill 
provides increased resources and authority to the States, in 
recognition of the progress made by State cleanup programs in the last 
decade.
  Superfund is notable among the major Federal environmental statutes 
not only for its abysmal track record, but also for its heavy reliance 
on EPA action rather than state implementation. In other environmental 
programs--RCRA, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act--EPA 
typically sets general program direction and provides technical support 
while leaving implementation and enforcement to the states. In the 
Superfund program, however, EPA takes a direct role in both enforcement 
and cleanup. This leadership role was originally justified by a 
perceived inability or alleged unwillingness on the part of states to 
perform or oversee cleanups. The situation today is far different.
  The Environmental Law Institute reported last year that States have 
now completed 41,000 cleanups, with another 13,700 in progress. The 
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 
(ASTSWMO) reports that ``States are not only addressing more sites at 
any given time, but are also completing more sites through streamlined 
State programs. State programs have matured and increased in their 
infrastructure capacity.''
  Most now recognize that states have made great strides in their 
programs, and even EPA in May of 1998 released a ``Plan to Enhance the 
Role of States and Tribes in the Superfund Program.'' Not surprisingly, 
while that plan appears to provide some increased opportunities for 
state leadership, it also envisions a significant, on-going role for 
EPA.
  The Superfund Program Completion Act, on the other hand, assists, 
recognizes and builds on the growth of state cleanup programs. The SPCA 
also responds to pleas from ASTSWMO, the National Governors Association 
and others to remove the ever-present threat of EPA over-filing and 
third party lawsuits under Superfund when a site is being cleaned up 
under a State program. The SPCA recognizes the fact that States should 
be the leaders in cleaning up hazardous waste sites by:
  Providing $100 million annually for State core and voluntary response 
programs to allow States to build on their impressive record of 
accomplishment in this area.
  Providing finality, except in cases of emergency or at a State's 
request, for cleanups conducted under State law.
  Requiring EPA to work with the States so that sites listed on the NPL 
are those the Governor of the State agrees warrant an NPL listing.
  Mr. President, the legislation we introduce today represents the 
culmination of years of hard work. In the four years I have been 
Chairman of the Superfund Subcommittee, we have heard from more than 
100 witnesses, representing every viewpoint, in an effort to grapple 
with the problems caused by the Superfund law. We have communicated 
with thousands of individuals and organizations who have urged us to 
fix this law.
  Senator Chafee and I have spent long hours with our Democratic 
colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and with EPA 
Administrator Carol Browner. So far, we and our staffs have devoted 
more than 600 hours to this effort. We have negotiated issues, 
identified areas of agreement, eliminated many areas of controversy, 
and pinpointed those few remaining areas where our differences will 
need to be resolved through the legislative process itself. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle during 
that process.
  Before I close, let me say a few words about taxes. Simply put, there 
are no taxes required to finance this bill, and I will oppose all 
attempts to attach them to it.
  Congress has appropriated more than $20 billion to support EPA's 
Superfund program during the past 19 years. The GAO reports that amount 
includes more than $6 billion of unrecovered ``recoverable costs.'' 
``Recoverable costs'' are taxpayer expenditures that EPA made in 
anticipation of recovering them from individual polluters at sites. 
That sum alone would be sufficient to finance EPA's cleanup efforts 
throughout the life of this reauthorization. Our bill allows those 
funds to be used for cleanup when EPA does recover them. Further, there 
should be no doubt that Congress will continue to appropriate funds 
needed for EPA to finish its job. More taxes are not required to 
finance this bill or to finish the Superfund program.
  During the last two Congresses, I was willing to support the 
reimposition of

[[Page S5755]]

taxes to finance Superfund legislation with major changes in the areas 
of remedy selection and natural resource damages--as well as more 
sweeping liability reforms than are contained in the bill we introduce 
today. There remains a real need for those reforms, and I pledge to 
continue my efforts in that regard.
  The bill we introduce today, however, is designed to achieve all that 
we can under the current Administration. It represents substantial, 
real reform that will help thousands of communities and millions of 
Americans. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my colleagues 
Senator Bob Smith and Senator. John Chafee in introducing the Superfund 
Program Completion Act. For several years Congress has worked 
diligently to find common ground for all parties involved, common 
ground that will also correct the flaws of the original law. Senator 
Smith's legislation will do just that.
  In 1980, Congress approved the Comprehensive Environmental Response 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) which was intended to pay for 
the cleanup of the nation's most hazardous waste sites. This law became 
known as Superfund--a bit ironic since the law provides no funding, but 
instead requires those who operated or used the landfill to pay for the 
cleanup.
  There is logic and fairness in requiring the polluters to pay for the 
cleanup; however, Superfund's liability structure was so poorly planned 
excessive litigation was encouraged. Cleanup did not occur and costs 
were passed to small businesses across the nation. Superfund did cause 
unnecessary lawsuits and wasted valuable time, all the while leaving 
sites across America polluted.
  Mr. President, this new legislation by Senators Smith and Chafee 
would exempt those small businesses who acted in good faith and are 
still being dragged into Superfund as third and fourth party defendants 
by simply throwing out their household trash. Superfund does not 
distinguish large from small, nor does it distinguish polluters from 
responsible businesses. In many instances, these business owners did 
nothing wrong. Yet, the law penalizes people for something that at one 
time was legal.
  Virtually all sides agree that some small businesses should have 
never been pulled into the system. While this legislation would not be 
retroactive, it will save small businesses in other communities from 
future Superfund lawsuits. It is important to reward those who have 
acted responsibly. I believe Senator Smith's bill is responsible.
  Mr. President, I do not believe there is one Senator who is pleased 
with the way in which the Superfund statute has operated. Like small 
businesses, recyclers have also been targeted to pay for cleanup. They 
should not be held responsible for pollution at a Superfund site. The 
Administration agrees. A majority of the Congress agrees. The 
environmental community agrees. Senator Smith's bill will fix the 
recycler's problem and remain faithful to the environment.
  Over the past three decades, concern for our environment and natural 
resources has grown--as has the desire to recycle and reuse. This makes 
environmental sense. This legislation would remove an unintended yet 
troublesome legal obstacle to recycling. This bill corrects current law 
and encourages recycling. It simply recognizes that recycling is not 
disposal and that recyclables are not waste. Common sense tells us that 
recycling something is not the same as disposing of it.
  This bill will help level the playing field between the use of 
recycled goods and competitive virgin raw materials. Currently 
suppliers of virgin raw materials face no Superfund liability for 
contamination caused by the consumer. This bill will supply the same 
waiver to those who sell recyclable materials.
  This bill also contains protections to ensure that sham recyclers are 
unable to benefit from this exemption. In order for recyclers to be 
relieved of Superfund liability, they must act in an environmentally 
sound manner and sell their product to manufacturers with 
environmentally responsible business practices. Considering that most 
recyclers are currently operating in a reasonable and conscience 
manner, this should be an easy test.
  Mr. President, the recycling portion of the bill is the product of 
lengthy negotiations between the federal and state governments, the 
environmental community and the recycling industry. It serves only one 
purpose--to remove from the liability loop those who collect and ship 
recyclables to a third party site. These negotiations have resulted in 
a provision that I believe to be both environmentally and fiscally 
sound. By removing the threat of Superfund liability for recyclers, we 
will encourage more recycling.
  Mr. President, while this provision is not precisely the Superfund 
Recycling Equity Act which Senator Daschle and I introduced last year--
a bill which was supported by 63 of our Senate colleagues--I look 
forward to working with all parties to ensure we pass a bill that the 
Administration, environmentalists, and industry can support.
  Mr. President, I will also work with my colleagues to ensure that no 
Superfund taxes will be reinstated. After many years and millions and 
millions of dollars spent by the government, large businesses, 
municipalities, schools, and small businesses, only a fraction of the 
costs has been devoted to cleanup. This cannot continue to happen.
  I have seen a copy of the May 14, 1999, letter from Senators Chafee 
and Smith to the Environmental Protection Agency, and I completely 
agree with its conclusions. There is no need for additional tax 
revenue. I want to quote from their letter because the Senators said it 
just right.
  ``Many responsible parties who have already paid for their own 
cleanups would also be liable for reimposed taxes. They are frankly 
unwilling to see the tax reinstated unless there are sweeping reforms 
in the structure of the program, as well. We find their arguments 
persuasive. We will not vote to reimpose the tax, unless it is part of 
a comprehensive Superfund reform.''
  ``There is a second reason for our opposition to a tax extension at 
this time. As we noted in a recent letter to Administrator Browner, 
Congress has appropriated $15.9 billion for Superfund from its 
inception through 1988. The Superfund Trust Fund was created to 
facilitate rapid cleanups carried out by the federal government's 
expenditures would be recovered from responsible parties once the 
cleanup action was complete. This is real ``polluters pay'' 
principle.''
  ``However, only a small percentage of the $15.9 billion has been 
recovered. To date, the Agency has obtained commitments to recover $2.4 
billion. EPA has written off $5 billion of past expenditures and GAO 
reports that another $1.9 billion is likely unrecoverable because EPA 
did not properly calculate its indirect costs. This is a troubling 
record. A good cost recovery program that actually made the real 
polluters (as opposed to the taxpaying industries) pay could have 
recovered sufficient funds to carry Superfund through another 
authorization cycle without the reimposition of taxes. We are reluctant 
to ask Superfund taxpayers to once again prop up a Trust Fund that EPA 
has allowed to dwindle.''
  Mr. President, I'm very impressed with the Chairman Chafee and 
Chairman Smith have done in getting this bill drafted and introduced. 
They are also working on a second major environmental bill in the waste 
area--RCRA. Last year we jointly requested a report from the GAO on 
what saving and efficiencies can be achieved with rifle shot fixes. 
This year Senators Chafee and Smith have been diligently working on 
finalizing a legislative approach that is compatible to this GAO study. 
I know their staffs have been consulting with all the stakeholders, and 
I look forward to seeing this bill this summer. Hopefully, both bills 
will have a chance to advance through the legislative process so that 
the full Senate can consider them. Both approaches are reforms that 
Americans deserve and need.
  As environmentalists talk about laws which protect the environment, 
Congress must determine who actually bears the burden of cost, and 
determine the balance. Superfund does not discriminate. The way 
Superfund is being implemented, it attacks our neighbors, our schools, 
and even our corner grocers. The Superfund Program Completion Act makes 
positive strides toward

[[Page S5756]]

correcting the balance and reflects society's progress from the 80's 
and incorporates the methods of the 90's.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Bond):
  S. 1091. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the establishment of a pediatric research initiative; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


             the pediatric research initiative act of 1999

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that 
will increase our nation's investment in pediatric research.
  Despite the medical breakthroughs that have been made by health 
researchers in recent years, it is obvious that health care research is 
under funded. I have joined with many senators to express support for 
doubling the budget at HIH for biomedical research. I will continue to 
fight for this increased funding so that NIH can expand its research 
efforts. An increase in funding is especially needed to improve our 
knowledge about illnesses and conditions affecting children.
  Children under age 12 represent 30 percent of the population--and 
yet, NIH devotes less than 12 percent of its budget to their needs. 
There has been a growing consensus that children's health deserves more 
attention from the research community.
  The bill I am introducing today would help us begin to remedy the 
need for stronger investment in children's health research. I thank 
Senator Bond for joining with me in sponsoring this important 
legislation. This bill would authorize the Pediatric Research 
Initiative within the Office of the Director of National Institutes of 
Health (NIH) to encourage, coordinate, support, develop, and recognize 
pediatric research.
  The bill would authorize $50 million annually for the next three 
years. During the last three years, I worked with my colleagues to fund 
this important Initiative and as a result, it received $5 million in 
fiscal year (FY) 1997, $38.5 million in FY 1998, and at least $38.5 
million in FY 1999. I look forward to working with my colleagues again 
to continue on the path toward reaching the necessary funding level.
  Under this bill, the Initiative would provide $45 million over the 
next three years to encourage new initiatives and promising areas of 
pediatric research. It would also promote greater coordination in 
children's health research. Today, there are some 20 Institutes and 
Centers and Offices within NIH that do something in the way of 
pediatrics. In my view, we need to bring some level of coordination and 
focus to these efforts.
  In developing this Initiative, I have made sure that it would give 
the Director of NIH as much discretion as possible. The money has to be 
spent on outside research, so that the dollars flow out to the private 
sector--but it can go toward basic research or clinical research.
  This bill does not create any new Office, Center, or Institute. I 
would simply authorize funding for more research and better research 
coordination for children--not infrastructure.
  In addition to authorizing the Initiative, the legislation would 
authorize new funding, through the National Institutes of Child Health 
and Human Development (NICHD), for pediatric research training grants 
to provide a major increase in support for training additional 
pediatric research scientists. We need to strengthen our national 
investment in pediatric research training.
  The supply of pediatrician scientists needs to increase if we are to 
fulfill the new NIH policies that require the participation of children 
in NIH-funded clinical trials and the new Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) policies that require the testing of drugs for use by children 
before they can receive FDA approval.
  The number of pediatricians training to become subspecialists--the 
potential supply of future pediatrician scientists--is declining. The 
number of medical school pediatric departments that receive significant 
NIH research training grant support is limited--fewer than half receive 
any NIH research training grants. Many pediatricians in training have 
little or no exposure to research.
  Together, the Pediatric Research Initiative and the pediatric 
research training grants are crucial investments in our country's 
future--and will produce great returns. If we focus on improving health 
care for our children, we'll set the stage for them becoming healthy 
adults.
  This important legislation has the support of the pediatric research 
community in children's hopsitals and university pediatric departments 
all over the country, including the National Association of Children's 
Hospitals, Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairmen, 
American Pediatric Society, and Society for Pediatric Research, as well 
as the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International, March of Dimes, 
Association of Ohio Children's Hospitals, and many more
  I urge my colleagues to support this investment in our children and 
cosponsor this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1091

       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 ``Pediatric Research 
     Initiative Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) innovations in health care, deriving from scientific 
     investigation of the highest quality, offer substantial 
     benefits to the well-being of children and savings in health 
     care costs;
       (2) findings in pediatric research not only promote and 
     maintain health throughout a child's lifespan, but also 
     contribute significantly to new insights and discoveries that 
     will aid in the prevention and treatment of illnesses and 
     conditions among adults;
       (3) the rapidly expanding knowledge base in biology and 
     medicine is offering greater opportunities than ever for 
     pediatric physician-scientists and basic researchers to 
     harness this knowledge to the benefit of children and 
     society;
       (4) the relatively smaller number of children compared as 
     to adults and the relative rarity of many of their diseases 
     and conditions has resulted in comparatively fewer resources 
     being devoted to pediatric research and a lesser focus on 
     children's needs;
       (5) substantially more of the support for children's health 
     research is provided through the Federal Government than is 
     the case for adults because of these market forces;
       (6) a new commitment to invest in children's research today 
     will make a real difference for children tomorrow;
       (7) the commitment to invest in children's research should 
     include not only added investment that is devoted to 
     pediatric research but should also focus on ensuring the 
     existence of a future supply of pediatric physician-
     scientists;
       (8) the supply of pediatric physician-scientists is 
     threatened by market demands which provide little room for 
     support for research training for new pediatric physician-
     scientists;
       (9) over 60 percent of the pediatric departments in the 
     United States have no National Institutes of Health training 
     grant support; and
       (10) improvements in the level of training grant support is 
     essential to ensuring the existence of future generations of 
     pediatric clinical investigators who are responsible for 
     moving research discoveries from the laboratories to the 
     patients, and who are therefore critical to clinical 
     research.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF A PEDIATRIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE.

       Part A of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 281 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 404F. PEDIATRIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish within 
     the Office of the Director of NIH a Pediatric Research 
     Initiative (referred to in this section as the `Initiative'). 
     The Initiative shall be headed by the Director of NIH.
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Initiative is to provide 
     funds to enable the Director of NIH to encourage--
       ``(1) increased support for pediatric biomedical research 
     within the National Institutes of Health to ensure that the 
     expanding opportunities for advancement in scientific 
     investigations and care for children are realized;
       ``(2) enhanced collaborative efforts among the Institutes 
     to support multidisciplinary research in the areas that the 
     Director deems most promising; and
       ``(3) the development of adequate pediatric clinical trials 
     and pediatric use information to promote the safer and more 
     effective use of prescription drugs in the pediatric 
     population.
       ``(c) Duties.--In carrying out subsection (b), the Director 
     of NIH shall--
       ``(1) consult with the Institute of Child Health and Human 
     Development and the other Institutes, in considering their 
     requests for new or expanded pediatric research efforts, and 
     consult with other advisors as the Director determines 
     appropriate;

[[Page S5757]]

       ``(2) have broad discretion in the allocation of any 
     Initiative assistance among the Institutes, among types of 
     grants, and between basic and clinical research so long as 
     the--
       ``(A) assistance is directly related to the illnesses and 
     conditions of children; and
       ``(B) assistance is extramural in nature; and
       ``(3) be responsible for the oversight of any newly 
     appropriated Initiative funds and annually report to Congress 
     and the public on the extent of the total extramural support 
     for pediatric research across the NIH, including the specific 
     support and research awards allocated through the Initiative.
       ``(d) Authorization.--To carry out this section, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated in the aggregate, $50,000,000 
     for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2002.
       ``(e) Transfer of Funds.--The Director of NIH may transfer 
     amounts appropriated under this section to any of the 
     Institutes for a fiscal year to carry out the purposes of the 
     Initiative under this section.''.

     SEC. 4. INVESTMENT IN TOMORROW'S PEDIATRIC RESEARCHERS.

       Subpart 7 of part C of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285g et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 452E. INVESTMENT IN TOMORROW'S PEDIATRIC RESEARCHERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make available 
     within the National Institute of Child Health and Human 
     Development enhanced support for extramural activities 
     relating to the training and career development of pediatric 
     researchers.
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of support provided under 
     subsection (a) shall be to ensure the future supply of 
     researchers dedicated to the care and research needs of 
     children by providing for--
       ``(1) an increase in the number and size of institutional 
     training grants to medical school pediatric departments and 
     children's hospitals; and
       ``(2) an increase in the number of career development 
     awards for pediatricians building careers in pediatric basic 
     and clinical research.
       ``(c) Authorization.--To carry out this section, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2000, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $20,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      BY MR. CRAPO:
  S. 1092. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
with respect to regulation of pharmacists, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


              PHARMACIST'S PATIENT PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

 Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the 
``Pharmacist's Patient Protection Act of 1999.'' The purpose of the 
legislation is to stop the implementation of final regulations that 
have been issued by the Food and Drug Administration that will require 
community pharmacists to provide agency sanctioned information when 
certain prescription drugs are dispensed to a patient. Such 
regulations, commonly called ``MedGuides'', were issued in final form 
on December 1, 1998.
  Now why would Congress want to prohibit a regulation which would give 
patients written information about their medications? The answer is 
very simple. During the 104th Congress, the House and Senate debated 
this very same issue, and ultimately a compromise was reached whereby 
FDA agreed not to promulgate its MedGuide regulations for a period of 
time so that the private sector would have the opportunity to work with 
the Administration to develop a voluntary action plan to continue to 
increase the quality and quantity of written information already being 
provided to consumers with prescription medication. Under the agreement 
which was enacted into law as part of the FY 97 Agriculture 
Appropriations, FDA is prohibited from implementing any part of the 
MedGuide regulations until the year 2001. When we get to the year 2001, 
FDA would be permitted to move forward with the MedGuide initiative 
only if voluntary efforts failed to get written information to 75 
percent of all patients receiving a new prescription.
  Regrettably, FDA has chosen not to live up to its part of the 
agreement. The agency's final rule to require Medication Guides for 
selected prescription drugs, which will take effect on June 1, 1999, is 
in clear violation of federal law. It appears that FDA is deliberately 
ignoring the law. It would be my hope that the Administration would 
hold in abeyance the implementation of the MedGuide regulations, and 
honor the remainder of the moratorium relating to this rule making. 
However, I am not confident that this will occur, and therefore this 
bill is necessary so that we can put back into place the terms of the 
agreement that were made with the Administration during the 104th 
Congress.
  Finally, I should point out that holding off the implementation of 
the MedGuide rule will not deny patients access to prescription drug 
information, nor will it preclude FDA from communicating with 
pharmaceutical companies and community pharmacists about the importance 
of providing information to patients about their prescription drugs. In 
other words, nothing in this bill should be construed as restricting 
the ability of the FDA to use its existing authority regarding the 
provision of written patient information on a product-by-product basis 
with certain prescription medications.
  Let the competitive retail pharmacy marketplace continue to make 
great strides in providing consumers with meaningful, accurate and 
easily understood written information about prescription drugs. I urge 
my colleagues to co-sponsor the ``Pharmacist's Patient Protection Act 
of 1999.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1093. A bill to establish the Galisteo Basin Archaeological 
Protection Sites, to provide for the protection of archaeological sites 
in the Galisteo Basin of New Mexico and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          Galisteo Basin Archaeological Protection Act of 1999

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
designed to provide for the protection of various historical sites in 
the Galisteo Basin. The Basin is located in and around Santa Fe County, 
New Mexico, as depicted by this map. (See, map) To understand the 
importance of these sites, it's important to understand the history of 
this Basin.
  Mr. President, when the Spanish Conquistadores arrived in New Mexico 
in 1598, they found a thriving native Pueblo culture with its own 
unique traditions of religion, architecture, and art, which was 
enriched and influenced by an extensive system of trade. The subsequent 
history of conflict and coexistence between these two cultures, Pueblo 
Indian and Spanish, shaped much of the language, art, and cultural 
worldview of New Mexicans today.
  That initial history of cultural interaction in New Mexico 
encompassed a period of a little over one hundred years from the 1598, 
through the Pueblo revolt in 1680, and the recolonization by the 
Spanish in the early 1700s. Among these sites are examples of both the 
stone and adobe pueblo architectural styles which typified Native 
American pueblo communities prior to and during early Spanish 
colonization, including two of the largest of these ancient towns, San 
Marcos and San Lazaro Pueblos, which each had thousands of rooms at 
their peak. Also included in these sites are spectacular examples of 
Native American petroglyph art as well as historic missions which were 
constructed as part of the Spaniards' drive to convert the native 
populace to Catholicism. The twenty six archeological sites addressed 
in this bill provide cohesive picture of this crucial nexus in New 
Mexican history, depicting the culture of the pueblo people, and 
illustrating how it was affected by the Spanish settlers .
  Mr. President, through these sites, we have an opportunity to truly 
understand the simultaneous growth and the coexistence of these two 
cultures. Unfortunately, this is an opportunity we may soon lose. Most 
of these sites are not currently part of any preservation program and 
through weathering, erosion, vandalism, and amateur excavations are 
losing their interpretive value.
  This legislation creates a program under the Department of the 
Interior to preserve these sites, and to provide interpretive research 
in an integrated manner. While many of these sites are on federal 
public land, many are privately owned and a few are on state trust 
lands. The vision behind this legislation is that an integrated 
preservation program at sites on Federal lands could serve as a 
foundation for archaeological research that could be augmented with 
voluntary cooperative agreements with state agencies and private land 
owners. These agreements would provide landowners with the opportunity 
for technical and financial assistance to preserve the sites on their 
property. Where the parties deem

[[Page S5758]]

it appropriate, the legislation would also allow for the purchase or 
exchange of property to acquire these very valuable sites. With such a 
program in place, we should be able to preserve the history embodied in 
these sites for future generations.
  Mr. President, I would also like to add that this legislation is 
supported by Cochiti Pueblo which is culturally and historically tied 
to these sites. I have received a letter from Isaac Herrera , the 
Governor of Cochiti Pueblo expressing his support and that of the 
tribal council. Governor Herrera notes that the tribe has already 
donated $10,000 to the preservation of one of these sites. This 
legislation is also supported by the State Land Commissioner.
  Let me conclude by showing you some examples of these magnificent 
sites. These first 2 charts are from the Comanche Gap site, they are 
outstanding examples of petroglyph art. The next three charts I have 
show three of the various pueblo sites. The first, Pueblo Blanco. As 
you can see the drywash at the top of the picture and the road at the 
bottom, these are the types of erosion threats which I mentioned 
earlier. The next picture is Arroyo Hondo. Again, you have a drywash at 
the top, a major road along the site, and development around the site, 
which shows the threats posed. Finally is the Pueblo of Colorado, once 
again showing the threat of erosion from the drywashes above.
  Mr. President, I want to especially thank Jessica Schultz who has 
been an intern in my office this past year, and has done yeoman work in 
providing research for this bill and in helping to draft it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
Galisteo Basin Archaeological Protection Act of 1999 printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1093

       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 ``Galisteo Basin 
     Archaeological Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       (a) The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Galisteo Basin and surrounding area of New Mexico 
     is the location of many well preserved prehistoric and 
     historic archaeological resources of Native American and 
     Spanish colonial cultures;
       (2) These resources include the largest ruins of Pueblo 
     Indian settlements in the United States, spectacular examples 
     of Native American rock art, and ruins of Spanish colonial 
     settlements; and
       (3) These resources are being threatened by natural causes, 
     urban development, vandalism, and uncontrolled excavations.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide for the 
     preservation, protection, and interpretation of the 
     nationally significant archaeological resources in the 
     Galisteo Basin in New Mexico.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF GALISTEO BASIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL 
                   PROTECTION SITES.

       (a) In General.--The archaeological sites listed in 
     subsection (b), as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``Galisteo Basin Archaeological Protection Sites,'' and dated 
     May 1999, are hereby designated as ``Galisteo Basin 
     Archaeological Protection Sites'' (in this Act referred to as 
     the ``archaeological protection sites'').
       (b) Sites Described.--The archaeological sites referred to 
     in subsection (a) consist of 26 sites in the Galisteo Basin, 
     New Mexico, totaling approximately 4022 acres, as follows:


        Name                                                      Acres
Arroyo Hondo Pueblo..................................................21
Burnt Corn Pueblo...................................................110
Camino Real Site......................................................1
Chamisa Locita Pueblo................................................40
Comanche Gap Petroglyphs............................................768
Espinoso Ridge Site.................................................160
La Cienega Pueblo & Petroglyphs.....................................126
La Cienega Pithouse Village.........................................179
La Cieneguilla Petroglyphs..........................................186
La Cieneguilla Pueblo................................................12
Lamy Pueblo..........................................................30
Lamy Junction Site...................................................65
Las Huertas..........................................................20
Pa'ako Pueblo........................................................29
Petroglyph Hill......................................................90
Pueblo Blanco.......................................................533
Pueblo Colorado.....................................................120
Pueblo Galisteo/Las Madres..........................................284
Pueblo Largo.........................................................60
Pueblo She..........................................................120
Rote Chert Quarry.....................................................1
San Cristobal Pueblo................................................390
San Lazaro Pueblo...................................................416
San Marcos Pueblo...................................................152
Tonque Pueblo........................................................97
Upper Arroyo Hondo Pueblo............................................12
                                                               ________
                                                               
    Total Acreage.................................................4,022

       (c) Availability of Map.--The Secretary shall keep the map 
     referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for 
     public inspection in appropriate offices in New Mexico of the 
     Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.
       (d) Boundary Adjustments.--The Secretary may make minor 
     boundary adjustments by publishing notice thereof in the 
     Federal Register.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL SITES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
       (1) continue to search for additional Native American and 
     Spanish colonial sites in the Galisteo Basin area of New 
     Mexico; and
       (2) submit to Congress, within three years after the date 
     funds become available and thereafter as needed, his 
     recommendations for additions to, deletions from, and 
     modifications of the boundaries of the list of 
     archaeological protection sites in section 4 of this Act.
       (b) Additions Only by Statute.--Additions to or deletions 
     from the list in section 3(b) shall be made only by an Act of 
     Congress.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     archaeological protection sites, which are located on Federal 
     lands, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the 
     Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 
     470aa et seq.), and the Native American Graves Protection and 
     Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et. seq.), and other 
     applicable laws in a manner that will protect, preserve, and 
     maintain the archaeological resources and provide for 
     research thereon.
       (b) Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Within three complete fiscal years after 
     the date funds are made available, the Secretary shall 
     prepare and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Resources 
     of the United States Senate and the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the United States House of Representatives, a 
     general management plan for the identification, research, 
     protection, and public interpretation of the archaeological 
     protection sites located on Federal land and for those sites 
     for which the Secretary has entered into Cooperative 
     Agreements regarding sites that are located on private or 
     state lands.
       (2) Consultation.--The plan shall be developed by the 
     Secretary in consultation with the Governor of New Mexico, 
     the New Mexico State Land Commissioner, affected Native 
     American pueblos, and other interested parties.

     SEC. 6. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

       The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative 
     agreements with the owners of non-Federal land with regard to 
     the inclusion of the archaeological protection sites located 
     on their property. The purposes of such an agreement shall be 
     to protect, preserve, maintain, and administer the 
     archaeological resources and associated lands of such a site. 
     Where appropriate, such agreement may also provide for public 
     interpretation of an archaeological protection site.

     SEC. 7. ACQUISITIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire 
     lands and interests therein within the boundaries of the 
     archaeological protection sites, and access thereto, by 
     donation, by purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or 
     by exchange.
       (b) Consent of Owner Required.--The Secretary may only 
     acquire lands or interests therein within the consent of the 
     owner thereof.
       (c) State Lands.--The Secretary may acquire lands or 
     interests therein owned by the State of New Mexico or a 
     political subdivision thereof only by donation or exchange.

     SEC. 9. WITHDRAWAL.

       Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal lands within 
     the protection sites are hereby withdrawn--
       (1) from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal 
     under the public land laws and all amendments thereto;
       (2) from location, entry, and patent under the mining law 
     and all amendments thereto; and
       (3) from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and 
     geothermal leasing, and all amendments thereto.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1095. A bill to amend section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to extend the placed in service date for biomass and coal 
facilities; to the Committee on Finance.


             the biomass and coal facilities extension act

 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I join again with my friend 
from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Biomass and Coal Facilities 
Extension Act. This legislation would extend by eight months the 
placed-in-service date under section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code.
  We are offering the same bill we offered in the 105th Congress 
because the problem addressed by the bill remains uncorrected. The 
change we propose is

[[Page S5759]]

necessary in order to alleviate a hardship taxpayers are suffering as a 
result of their reliance on actions taken by Congress nearly three 
years ago.
  A number of taxpayers made substantial commitments of resources to 
develop alternative fuel technology projects in good faith reliance on 
the incentives provided in the Small Business Protection Act of 1996. 
Under that law, Congress intended to ensure that alternative fuel 
technology projects involving coal and biomass would qualify for the 
credit provided under section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code as long 
as projects were subject to a binding contract by December 31, 1996 and 
placed in service by June 30, 1998.
  That should have settled the matter. However, a proposal offered by 
the Administration in February 1997 contained a proposal to shorten the 
placed-in-service deadline by a full year for facilities producing gas 
from biomass and synthetic fuel from coal. The Administration was 
concerned about what it characterized as rapid growth in the section 29 
credit. Congress considered that argument, but concluded that no change 
in the 1996 legislation was necessary.
  In the tax legislative arena, even a mere proposal can have 
consequences. When the Joint Committee on Taxation published its 
analysis of the Administration's budget proposals in March 1997, it 
warned Congress about just such a consequence as it observed that 
``[b]ecause the binding contract date has already passed * * * the 
proposal might place an unfair financial burden on those taxpayers who 
are bound to contracts entered into prior to the Administration's 
announcement.''
  Mr. President, that is exactly what happened--many taxpayers who 
found themselves in that situation lost their sources of funding 
because financial institutions were obligated to take into account the 
possibility that the Administration's proposal could have become law. 
Because the tax credit plays a significant role in the financial 
examination lenders must make, its potential loss made securing the 
necessary financing impossible for taxpayers who were proceeding in 
good faith under binding contracts made in reliance on the provisions 
of the Small Business Protection Act of 1996.
  The bill would extend the placed-in-service date for a period eight 
months from the date of the bill's enactment. This would restore some 
of the time that taxpayers lost as a result of the confusion which 
resulted from the events of 1997.
  Let me emphasize that the bill would not authorize any ``new 
starts.'' The binding contract date provided in the 1996 Act would not 
be altered. The sole purpose of this bill is to allow taxpayers who 
began projects under the 1996 Act to proceed in an orderly manner to 
create the kinds of facilities that will help increase the country's 
useful energy resources.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand today with my colleague, Senator 
Conrad, to introduce legislation aimed at helping companies to develop 
technologies for cleaner burning fuels. This is important to the people 
in my home state of Utah where air pollution is one of the top concerns 
of citizens.
  I believe that cleaner burning fuels that will reduce emissions is a 
key element of the solution to this problem. The Biomass and Coal 
Facilities Extension Act would provide a tool for companies that are 
stepping into this void and developing clean burning fuels by extending 
the ``placed in service'' date under section 29 for facilities that 
produce alternative fuels.
  Section 29 was originally created to encourage the development of 
alternative fuels to reduce our dependence on imports and to reduce the 
environmental impacts of certain fuels. With the enormous reserves of 
low rank coals and lignite in the United States and around the world, 
and with the potential for use of biomass and other alternatives, it is 
particularly important to the American economy and to our environment 
that new, more environmentally friendly fuels are brought to market 
both here and in developing nations.
  Bringing new technologies to market is financially risky. In 
particular, finding investors to take a new technology from a 
laboratory table to the marketplace is difficult because working the 
bugs out of a first-of-a-kind, full-sized plant is a costly 
undertaking. Incentives to bring new, clean energy technologies to the 
market in the U.S. are a worthwhile use of the tax code.
  In 1996, Congress provided sufficient incentives to make the 
development of alternative fuels a viable pursuit by extending the 
section 29 ``placed in service'' date for facilities designed to 
produce energy from biomass or processed coals to July 1, 1998, 
provided that those facilities were constructed pursuant to a binding 
contract entered into before January 1, 1997. Many contracts were 
signed and construction projects started.
  Then the Administration released its budget in February 1997. It 
contained a proposal to eliminate the extension granted just one year 
before, cutting off the section 29 credit for plants not completed by 
July 1, 1997, which is an impossible deadline to meet for many of these 
projects.
  Without the assurance of the section 29 tax credit, financing for 
these projects dried up. Taxpayers were stranded in contracts, some of 
which contained significant liquidated damages clauses. As a result of 
the Administration's proposal, taxpayers essentially lost a significant 
amount of the extension given them by Congress in 1996.
  The bill before us would give companies with projects already in 
progress and contracts signed by January 1, 1997 some additional time 
to finish these projects. The bill does not extend the contract 
deadline, allow more projects to be initiated, or change the 2008 
deadline for receiving the section 29 tax credit. This bill simply 
restores some of the time that taxpayers lost in their efforts to 
develop environmentally friendly fuels under section 29.
  Bringing new alternative fuel technologies to the market is an 
important part of our commitment to a cleaner environment and a secure 
economy. Congress reflected that commitment in our efforts to mitigate 
some of the financial risk involved in developing this much needed 
technology in 1996. This bill maintains that commitment. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerrey, 
        Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 1099. A bill to establish a mechanism for using the duties imposed 
on products of countries that fail to comply with WTO dispute 
resolution decision to provide relief to injured domestic producers; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                     trade injury compensation act

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Bingaman, 
Dorgan, Kerrey, Johnson, and Daschle. I rise to introduce the Trade 
Injury Compensation Act of 1999.
  Under U.S. trade law, we may retaliate when a trading partner 
improperly closes its market to American goods or services. In certain 
circumstances, the World Trade Organization endorses that retaliation. 
The normal form of trade retaliation is to increase the tariff to one 
hundred percent on a designated list of imported goods.
  The intention of retaliation is not protectionist. It is just the 
opposite--use the leverage of access to the huge United States market 
to open up a foreign market and expand trade. Retaliation is a tool 
designed to inflict enough economic pain on a trading partner that he 
returns to the negotiating table and removes the trade barriers that 
started the problem in the first place. Sometimes these negotiations 
restart quickly, sometimes even before the retaliation goes into 
effect. Other times, the negotiations start again only after the impact 
of retaliation sinks in.
  In some cases, the new one hundred percent tariff raises the price of 
the imported good so prohibitively that it is priced completely out of 
the market. In other cases, the product is still sold in the United 
States, perhaps at a higher price, or perhaps at the original price 
with the importer absorbing the added tariff.
  The United States is increasingly taking trade disputes to the WTO's 
Dispute Settlement Body. However, some of our trading partners have 
been, in effect, snubbing their nose at the WTO's decisions. The most 
egregious example of this is the European Union, whose approach to WTO 
dispute

[[Page S5760]]

settlement is, frankly, outrageous. First, in bananas, and now in beef, 
the EU is using legal and procedural technicalities to delay 
implementation of important and legitimate WTO panel decisions. Each 
time they do this, the EU seriously undermines the credibility of the 
WTO as a fair and even-handed place to get trade justice.
  The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a mechanism for using 
the tariffs imposed when a country fails to comply with WTO dispute 
resolution decisions. Normally, the additional tariff revenues received 
from retaliation go to the Treasury. This bill establishes a trust fund 
so that the affected industry will receive those revenues as 
compensation for its injury.
  In the case of agriculture, the money will be spent on promotion and 
development of products for the industry. In non-agriculture cases, the 
money will go to additional Trade Adjustment Assistance payments to the 
affected industry.
  Mr. President, the WTO is a critically important institution that 
sets the foundation and framework to make world trade grow. We all 
recognize that it needs improvement, and I, along with many of my 
colleagues, are working on ways to fix it, starting with the WTO 
Ministerial in Seattle. But, while the United Staes is striving to 
support and improve the WTO system, the EU seems to be working overtime 
to undercut the WTO. We must stop this abuse of the WTO, and we must 
provide assistance to our industries that are damaged by these illegal 
actions of the EU or others in the future.
  Within two weeks, the Administration will implement retaliatory 
measures against the European Union because of its WTO-illegal 
restrictions on beef. My bill would provide the American beef industry 
with much needed compensation while the retaliatory measures remain in 
place.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1099

       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 ``Trade Injury Compensation 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) United States goods and services compete in global 
     markets and it is necessary for trade agreements to promote 
     such competition.
       (2) The current dispute resolution mechanism of the World 
     Trade Organization is designed to resolve disputes in a 
     manner that brings stability and predictability to world 
     trade.
       (3) When foreign countries refuse to comply with a panel or 
     Appellate Body report of the World Trade Organization and 
     violate any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, it has a 
     deleterious effect on the United States economy.
       (4) A WTO member can retaliate against a country that 
     refuses to implement a panel or Appellate Body report by 
     imposing additional duties of up to 100 percent on goods 
     imported from the noncomplying country.
       (5) In cases where additional duties are imposed on 
     imported goods, the duties should be used to provide relief 
     to the industry that is injured by the noncompliance.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural 
     commodity'' has the meaning given the term by section 102 (1) 
     of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602(1)).
       (2) Injured agricultural commodity producer.--The term 
     ``injured agricultural commodity producer'' means a domestic 
     producer of an agricultural commodity with respect to which a 
     dispute resolution proceeding has been brought before the 
     World Trade Organization, if the dispute resolution is 
     resolved in favor of the agricultural commodity producer, and 
     the foreign country against which the proceeding has been 
     brought has failed to comply with the report of the panel or 
     Appellate Body of the WTO.
       (3) Injured producer.--The term ``injured producer'' means 
     a domestic producer of a product (other than an agricultural 
     product) with respect to which a dispute resolution 
     proceeding has been brought before the World Trade 
     Organization, if the dispute resolution is resolved in favor 
     of the producer, and the foreign country against which the 
     proceeding has been brought has failed to comply with the 
     report of the panel or Appellate Body of the WTO.
       (4) Retaliation list.--The term ``retaliation list'' means 
     the list of products of a foreign country that has failed to 
     comply with the report of the panel or Appellate Body of the 
     WTO and with respect to which the United States Trade 
     Representative is imposing duties above the level that would 
     otherwise be imposed under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
     the United States.
       (5) Uruguay round agreements.--The term ``Uruguay Round 
     Agreements'' has the meaning given such term in section 2(7) 
     of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(7)).
       (6) World trade organization.--The term ``World Trade 
     Organization'' means the organization established pursuant to 
     the WTO Agreement.
       (7) WTO agreement.--The term ``WTO Agreement'' means the 
     Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization entered 
     into on April 15, 1994.
       (8) WTO and wto member.--The terms ``WTO'' and ``WTO 
     member'' have the meanings given those terms in section 2 of 
     the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).

     SEC. 4. TRADE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the ``Trade Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund'' (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``Fund'') consisting of such amounts as may be appropriated 
     to the Fund under subsection (b) and any amounts credited to 
     the Fund under subsection (c)(2).
       (b) Transfer of Amounts Equivalent to Certain Duties.--
       (1) In general.--There are hereby appropriated and 
     transferred to the Fund an amount equal to the amount 
     received in the Treasury as a result of the imposition of 
     additional duties imposed on the products on a retaliation 
     list.
       (2) Transfers based on estimates.--The amounts required to 
     be transferred under paragraph (1) shall be transferred at 
     least quarterly from the general fund of the Treasury to the 
     Fund on the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury. Proper adjustment shall be made in amounts 
     subsequently transferred to the extent prior estimates were 
     in excess of or less than the amounts required to be 
     transferred.
       (c) Investment of Trust Fund.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     such portion of the Fund as is not, in the Secretary's 
     judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such 
     investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations 
     of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both 
     principal and interest by the United States.
       (2) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds 
     from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the 
     Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.
       (d) Distributions From Fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall be 
     available as provided in appropriations Acts, for making 
     distributions in accordance with subsections (e) and (f).
       (e) Criteria for Determining Injured Producers and Amount 
     To Be Paid.--Not later than 30 days after the implementation 
     of a retaliation list, the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
     Commerce, shall promulgate such regulations as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. The 
     regulations shall include the following:
       (1) Procedures for identifying injured producers and 
     injured producers of agricultural commodities.
       (2) Standards for determining the eligibility of injured 
     producers and injured producers of agricultural commodities 
     to participate in the distribution of any money from the 
     Fund.
       (3) Procedures for determining the amount of the 
     distribution each injured producer and injured producers of 
     agricultural commodities should be paid.
       (4) Procedures for establishing separate accounts for 
     duties collected with respect to each retaliation list and 
     for making distributions to the group of injured producers 
     and injured producers of agricultural commodities with 
     respect to each such retaliation list.
       (f) Distribution to Injured Producers.--
       (1) Distribution to agricultural producers.--The Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture such sums as may be transferred or credited to 
     the Fund as the result of items on a retaliation list because 
     of injury to producers of agricultural commodities. The 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall distribute to each injured 
     producer of an agricultural commodity that the Secretary 
     determines is eligible a portion of the amount so 
     transferred. The distribution shall be made in accordance 
     with the subsection (e) and shall be used by the producers 
     for the promotion and development of products of the injured 
     producers.
       (2) Distribution to other injured producers.--The Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary of Commerce 
     such sums as may be transferred or credited to the Fund as 
     the result of items on a retaliation list because of injury 
     to producers (other than producers of agricultural 
     commodities). The Secretary of Commerce shall distribute to 
     each injured producer (other than a producer described in 
     paragraph (1)) that the Secretary determines is eligible a 
     portion of the amount so transferred. The distribution shall 
     be made in accordance with subsection (e) and in accordance 
     with the procedures applicable to the provision of assistance 
     under chapter 3 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2341 et seq.).

[[Page S5761]]

       (g) Report to Congress.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, after consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture 
     and Commerce, submit a report to the Congress each year on--
       (1) the financial condition and the results of the 
     operations of the Fund during the preceding fiscal year; and
       (2) the expected condition and operations of the Fund 
     during the fiscal year following the fiscal year that is the 
     subject of the report.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON REDUCING SERVICES OR FUNDS.

       No payment made to an injured producer or an injured 
     agricultural commodity producer under this Act shall result 
     in the reduction or denial of any service or assistance with 
     respect to which the injured producer or injured agricultural 
     commodity producer would otherwise be entitled.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Crap, and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 1100. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to 
provide that the designation of critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species be required as part of the development of recovery 
plans for those species; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


                      critical habitat legislation

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill, together 
with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Domenici and Crapo, to 
address one of the most problematic, controversial and misunderstood 
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This is the provision 
relating to the designation of critical habitat for endangered or 
threatened species.
  As I have often said, the key to protecting our nation's fish and 
wildlife is to protect the habitat on which those species depend. This 
is particularly true for endangered and threatened species, which often 
fall into such precarious condition precisely because of habitat loss 
and degradation. This makes habitat protection for those species all 
the more vital. It is thus terribly ironic that the provisions in the 
ESA relating to habitat are those that present the most problems. My 
bill goes a long way to fix those problems. It is virtually identical 
to the critical habitat provisions contained in S. 1180 from the last 
Congress, which was approved by the Environment and Public Works 
Committee by a vote of 15 to 3, with strong bipartisan support.
  Landowners fear that critical habitat imposes severe restrictions on 
use of their own lands; the Secretary frequently does not designate 
critical habitat to avoid these controversies; and environmental groups 
often bring lawsuits over this failure to designate. Of almost 1,200 
species listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, only 113--nine 
percent--have critical habitat designated. Indeed, of the 256 species 
listed since April 1996, the Service has designated critical habitat 
for only two. As a result, numerous lawsuits have been brought against 
the Service in recent years. Currently, 15 active lawsuits are pending, 
with six already decided--all against the Secretary--and prospective 
challenges for another 40 species are on the horizon.
  These statistics underscore the problems with the existing law with 
respect to critical habitat designations. The root of these problems 
lies in the fact that designation of critical habitat requires 
knowledge of the conservation needs of the species as well as an 
assessment of the economic impacts of the designation, neither of which 
is generally known, or can be determined, at the time of listing.
  Designation of critical habitat is more appropriate in the context of 
developing a recovery plan for a listed species, because the recovery 
plan specifically addresses the conservation needs of the species and 
provides for an estimate of the costs for recovery actions. Indeed, 
numerous individuals and organizations, including the National Research 
Council, have suggested that the requirement to designate critical 
habitat be moved from the time of listing to the time of recovery plan 
development.
  As for recovery plans, the Secretary is required to develop and 
implement recovery plans for listed species. However, there is no 
deadline for the Secretary to do so. Less than 70 percent of listed 
species are covered in a recovery plan, and 56 percent of those species 
without plans have been listed for longer than one year. These 
statistics underscore the need for a mandatory deadline for developing 
recovery plans.
  The bill that I introduce today would move the requirement to 
designate critical habitat from the time of listing to the time of 
recovery plan development. The bill would also require that a recovery 
team be appointed, unless the Secretary states otherwise through notice 
and comment. The bill would also provide a deadline for development of 
recovery plans, no later than 36 months after listing. In the event 
that the designation is necessary to avoid the imminent extinction of 
the species, the bill allows the Secretary to designate critical 
habitat concurrently with listing. A new provision would be added to 
the citizen suit section that would require any lawsuit challenging the 
actual designation of critical habitat to be brought in conjunction 
with a suit challenging the recovery plan on which the designation is 
based. Other than these changes, the critical habitat provisions would 
remain virtually the same as in existing law.
  Let me say that I do not have any desire to open the broader question 
of reauthorization of the ESA. I believe that this bill addresses a 
narrow fix in a way that answers the complaints of both environmental 
groups and the regulated community. I do not advocate the inclusion of 
other issues not related to critical habitat. There may be another time 
and vehicle for that, but this is not the time, and this bill should 
not be the vehicle.
  In closing, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his cooperation on this 
issue, and for his decision to work on this bill together in lieu of 
offering a rider on the recent supplemental appropriations bill. I know 
this issue is of no great importance to the constituents in his home 
State, and I am pleased to work with him to find a resolution.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1100

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

     SECTION 1. RECOVERY PLANS AND CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS.

       The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting after section 4 the following:


           ``recovery plans and critical habitat designations

       ``Sec. 4A.'';
       (2) by moving subsection (f) of section 4 to appear at the 
     end of section 4A (as added by paragraph (1)); and
       (3) in section 4A (as amended by paragraph (2))--
       (A) by striking ``(f)(1) Recovery Plans.--The'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--The'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as 
     subsections (b) through (e), respectively;
       (C) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by striking ``(b) The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Recovery Teams.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Appointment of a team.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date of publication under section 4 of a final 
     determination that a species is a threatened species or 
     endangered species, the Secretary, in cooperation with any 
     State affected by the determination, shall--
       ``(A) appoint a recovery team to develop a recovery plan 
     for the species; or
       ``(B) after public notice and opportunity for comment, 
     determine that a recovery team shall not be appointed.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Schedule.--For each species determined to be an 
     endangered species or a threatened species after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection for which the Secretary is 
     required to develop a recovery plan under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall publish--
       ``(1) not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     publication under section 4 of the final regulation 
     containing the listing determination, a draft recovery plan; 
     and
       ``(2) not later than 3 years after the date of publication 
     under section 4 of the final regulation containing the 
     listing determination, a final recovery plan.''.

     SEC. 2. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4A of the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 (as added by section 1) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(g) Critical Habitat Designations.--
       ``(1) Recommendation of the recovery team.--
       ``(A) Recovery team appointed.--Not later than nine months 
     after the date of publication under section 4 of a final 
     regulation containing a listing determination for a species, 
     the recovery team (if a recovery team has

[[Page S5762]]

     been appointed for the species) shall provide the Secretary 
     with a description of any habitat of the species that is 
     recommended for designation as critical habitat pursuant to 
     this subsection and any recommendations for special 
     management considerations or protection that are specific to 
     the habitat.
       ``(B) No recovery team appointed.--If a recovery team is 
     not appointed by the Secretary, the Secretary shall perform 
     all duties of the recovery team required under this section.
       ``(2) Designation by the secretary.--The Secretary, to the 
     maximum extent prudent and determinable, shall by regulation 
     designate any habitat that is considered to be critical 
     habitat of an endangered species or a threatened species that 
     is indigenous to the United States or waters with respect to 
     which the United States exercises sovereign rights or 
     jurisdiction.
       ``(A) Designation.--
       ``(i) Proposal.--Concurrently with publication of a draft 
     recovery plan, the Secretary, after consultation and in 
     cooperation with the recovery team, shall publish in the 
     Federal Register a proposed regulation, based on the draft 
     recovery plan for the species, that designates critical 
     habitat for the species.
       ``(ii) Promulgation.--Concurrently with publication of a 
     final recovery plan, the Secretary, after consultation and in 
     cooperation with the recovery team, shall publish a final 
     regulation, based on the final recovery plan for the species, 
     that designates critical habitat for the species.
       ``(B) Other designations.--If a recovery plan is not 
     developed under this section for an endangered species or a 
     threatened species, the Secretary shall publish a final 
     critical habitat determination for the endangered species or 
     threatened species not later than three years after making a 
     determination that the species is an endangered species or a 
     threatened species.
       ``(C) Additional authority.--The Secretary may publish a 
     regulation designating critical habitat for an endangered 
     species or a threatened species concurrently with the final 
     regulation implementing the determination that the species is 
     endangered or threatened if the Secretary determines that 
     designation of such habitat at the time of listing is 
     essential to avoid the imminent extinction of the species.
       ``(3) Factors to be considered.--The designation of 
     critical habitat shall be made on the basis of the best 
     scientific and commercial data available and after taking 
     into consideration the economic impact, impacts to military 
     training and operations, and any other relevant impact, of 
     specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
     Secretary shall describe the economic impacts and other 
     relevant impacts that are to be considered under this 
     subsection in the publication of any proposed regulation 
     designating critical habitat.
       ``(4) Exclusions.--The Secretary may exclude any area from 
     critical habitat for a species if the Secretary determines 
     that the benefits of the exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
     designating the area as part of the critical habitat, unless 
     the Secretary determines that the failure to designate the 
     area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
     species.
       ``(5) Revisions.--The Secretary may, from time-to-time and 
     as appropriate, revise a designation. Each area designated as 
     critical habitat before the date of enactment of this 
     subsection shall continue to be considered so designated, 
     until the designation is revised in accordance with this 
     subsection.
       ``(6) Petitions.--
       ``(A) Determination that revision may be warranted.--To the 
     maximum extent practicable, not later than 90 days after 
     receiving the petition of an interested person under section 
     553(e) of title 5, United States Code, to revise a critical 
     habitat designation, the Secretary shall make a finding as to 
     whether the petition presents substantial scientific or 
     commercial information indicating that the revision may be 
     warranted. The Secretary shall promptly publish the finding 
     in the Federal Register.
       ``(B) Notice of proposed action.--Not later than one year 
     after receiving a petition that is found under subparagraph 
     (A) to present substantial information indicating that the 
     requested revision may be warranted, the Secretary shall 
     determine how to proceed with the requested revision, and 
     shall promptly publish notice of the intention in the Federal 
     Register.
       ``(7) Proposed and final regulations.--Any regulation to 
     designate critical habitat or implement a requested revision 
     shall be proposed and promulgated in accordance with 
     paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 4(b) in the same 
     manner as a regulation to implement a determination with 
     respect to listing a species.''.
       (b) Citizen Suits.--Section 11(g) of the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1540(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ``or section 4A'' 
     after ``section 4''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Actions relating to critical habitat designation.--
     With respect to an action relating to an alleged violation of 
     section 4A(g) concerning the area designated by the Secretary 
     as critical habitat, no action may be commenced independently 
     of an action relating to an alleged violation of subsection 
     (a) or (f) of section 4A.''.
       (c) Plans for Previously Listed Species.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of species included in the 
     list published under section 4(c) of the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)) before the date of enactment 
     of this Act, and for which no final recovery plan was 
     developed before the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as 
     appropriate, shall develop a final recovery plan in 
     accordance with the requirements of section 4A of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973, including the priorities of 
     subsection (a)(1) of that section, for not less than one-half 
     of the species not later than 36 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and for all species not later than 60 
     months after such date.
       (2) Designations of critical habitat.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, shall 
     review and revise as necessary any designation of critical 
     habitat for a species described in paragraph (1) based on the 
     final recovery plan for the species and in accordance with 
     section 4A(g) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 3(5)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``, at the time it is listed 
     in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this 
     Act,''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``at the time it is listed 
     in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act''.
       (2) Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533) (as amended by section 1(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3);
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (2);
       (ii) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (D);
       (iii) in paragraph (5), by striking ``, designation, or 
     revision referred to in subsection (a)(1) or (3),'' and 
     inserting ``referred to in subsection (a)(1),'';
       (iv) in paragraph (6)--

       (I) by striking ``(6)(A)'' and all that follows through the 
     end of subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:

       ``(6) Final regulations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Within the one-year period beginning on 
     the date on which general notice is published in accordance 
     with paragraph (5)(A)(i) regarding a proposed regulation, the 
     Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register--
       ``(i) a final regulation to implement the determination;
       ``(ii) notice that the one-year period is being extended 
     under subparagraph (B)(i); or
       ``(iii) notice that the proposed regulation is being 
     withdrawn under subparagraph (B)(ii), together with the 
     finding on which the withdrawal is based.'';

       (II) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``or revision'';
       (III) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ``or revision 
     concerned, a finding that the revision should not be made,''; 
     and
       (IV) by striking subparagraph (C); and

       (v) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (2) and 
     moving that paragraph to appear after paragraph (1);
       (C) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (i) in the second sentence, by inserting ``designated'' 
     before ``critical habitat''; and
       (ii) in the third sentence, by striking ``determinations, 
     designations, and revisions'' and inserting 
     ``determinations'';
       (D) by redesignating subsections (g) through (i) as 
     subsections (f) through (h), respectively; and
       (E) in subsection (g)(4) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``subsection (f) of this section'' and inserting ``section 
     4A''.
       (3) Section 4A of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as 
     added by section 1) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in the first sentence--

       (I) by striking ``this subsection'' and inserting ``this 
     section''; and
       (II) by striking ``this section'' and inserting ``section 
     4'';

       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
       (iii) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)--

       (I) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iii) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively; and
       (II) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``the provisions of this section'' and inserting ``section 
     4'';

       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``this section'' and 
     inserting ``section 4''; and
       (C) in subsection (e), by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (d)''.
       (4) Section 6(d)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1535(d)(1)) is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``section 4(g)'' and inserting ``section 4(f)''.
       (5) Section 10(f)(5) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1539(f)(5)) is amended by striking the last 
     sentence.
       (6) Section 104(c)(4)(A)(ii)(I) of the Marine Mammal 
     Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1374(c)(4)(A)(ii)(I)) is 
     amended by striking ``section 4(f)'' and inserting ``section 
     4A''.
       (7) Section 115(b)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
     of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1383b(b)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533(f))'' and inserting ``section 4A of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973''.
       (8) Section 118(f)(11) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
     of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1387(f)(11)) is amended by striking 
     ``section 4'' and inserting ``section 4A''.

[[Page S5763]]

       (9) The table of contents in the first section of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. prec. 1531) is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 4 the 
     following:

``Sec. 4A. Recovery plans and critical habitat designations.''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, just a few weeks ago I rose to speak and 
share with my fellow Senators an extraordinary exchange that occurred 
between myself and Interior Secretary Babbitt regarding the failings of 
the Endangered Species Act in a situation on the Rio Grande River in 
New Mexico. I told you that the Secretary's remarks were significant 
because they acknowledged that this law, however well intentioned, is 
not working.
  I felt Secretary Babbitt's testimony before the Senate Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee could open the door to significant reform 
of the Endangered Species Act, permitting all parties to work together. 
I pledged to begin serious work on improving the Endangered Species 
Act, and I am immensely pleased today to be cosponsoring this bill with 
Senators Chafee and Crapo to do just that.
  I was in the Senate to vote in favor of the Endangered Species Act, 
but the courts are implementing it in a cart before the horse fashion 
never contemplated by the Congress. The focus of saving species should 
be on planning recovery, not using premature habitat designation as a 
hammer on the heads of humans sharing that habitat. We want to protect 
endangered species, but we don't want to unnecessarily hurt people. 
Tying critical habitat designation to recovery plan implementation is 
logical, defensible, and the right thing to do. This legislation goes 
directly to the heart of this issue.
  The protection of endangered species is supposed to be accomplished 
by first figuring out the necessary habitat for survival, then 
designating that critical habitat. But the Endangered Species Act and 
the courts are rushing the process. According to Interior Secretary 
Bruce Babbitt, recent litigation will ``strait jacket'' the federal 
government into prematurely designating the critical habitat for, in 
one case, the Rio Grande silvery minnow.
  People in D.C. tend to forget that the western United States is the 
arid, ``great American desert.'' Western rivers and streams are 
primarily supported by melting snow pack. They change annually from 
roaring torrents in April to bare trickles in June, to dried up river 
beds in August. The Rio Grande, despite its ``big river'' title, is no 
exception to this cyclical flow. As a child, I often walked across the 
dry riverbed in Albuquerque.
  This will be a very dry year in the normally arid New Mexico. The 
historical hydrographic record shows that between 1899 and 1936, long 
before Albuquerque grew, or the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 
started to farm, the Rio Grande was dry twenty percent of the time in 
August as measured at the San Marcial Gauge.

  Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, prodded by various groups, 
are claiming a ``new'' water demand on the river for the silvery 
minnow. They should assert the interest in the water needed for the 
minnow, but the demand isn't new. The issue, however, is how should 
that interest be asserted and what the need really is. And, once known, 
how do we continue to address the human water needs, and at what cost?
  I believe something is terribly wrong in the way the courts are 
handling this situation because you may have to close down a river to 
human users without knowing the habitat needs for an endangered 
species. The Secretary of Interior is required to base critical habitat 
designation on the best scientific data available, after taking into 
consideration the economic impact of that designation.
  I asked Secretary Babbitt whether the Interior Department had 
sufficient data to determine the true water needs to sustain the 
silvery minnow in the Rio Grande, and to make an accurate economic and 
social assessment of what a critical habitat designation would mean to 
existing water rights owners. Babbitt testified that his department 
does not have sufficient information, but that it has no choice but to 
act because of federal court orders.
  The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously agreed that the best 
scientific and commercial data available must be used to designate a 
critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat is more appropriate 
in the context of a final recovery plan for an endangered species, 
because that plan must specifically address conservation needs and 
costs of recovery. This bill will move the requirement to designate 
habitat from the time of listing to the time of recovery plan 
development.
  The quantity of water needed by the Rio Grande silvery minnow is 
unknown. The Fish and Wildlife Service has conceded that there has 
never been a thorough study of the economic consequences of providing 
water as a critical habitat for the minnow.
  While we all want the silvery minnow and other endangered species to 
have their critical habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
Bureau of Reclamation acknowledge that they do not know what the 
``critical habitat'' is or should be. Were the consequences of 
designation insignificant, a guesstimate might be acceptable. However, 
as noted by the Bureau of Reclamation, a designation requiring year-
round continuous flows on a river that has never produced such flows 
could have a ``profound effect on downstream water users.''
  We must not try to cure the problem of endangered species with 
premature, uninformed, unscientific critical habitat designation, the 
validity of which has not been substantiated by adequate economic, 
scientific and social research. When the scientific facts on the 
possible side effects of a drug are unknown, the Food and Drug 
Administration does not authorize the sale of that drug. Likewise, the 
Endangered Species Act should not permit designation of critical 
habitat until we have scientifically determined that the habitat 
designation will be helpful to the species and does not impose 
unnecessary social and economic side effects.

  It is abundantly clear that a complete environmental analysis of a 
critical habitat designation is an absolute necessity. Senator Chafee, 
Senator Crapo, and I are now addressing this illogical and unworkable 
current situation with this bill. I thank them for their leadership on 
the Environment Committee. We will be working with the administration, 
and I encourage all my fellow Senators to participate in this limited, 
local and necessary endangered Species Act reform.
  This bill will now tie designation of critical habitat to the 
development of recovery plans for endangered and threatened species, as 
it should be. Federal agencies should not have their hands tied by 
premature designation, forced by litigation. If we want to save 
species, as was and is the intent of the Endangered Species Act, then 
we have to plan how to recover them.
  Recovery plans require objective and measurable criteria for saving 
species, specific descriptions of management actions, and cost 
estimates for those actions. This bill will create a mandatory deadline 
for developing final, comprehensive recovery plans. Critical habitat 
will now be designated in conjunction with those plans.
  These changes will go towards achieving the original goal of the 
Endangered Species Act. I am very proud to be a part of this historic 
legislation, and I anticipate a bipartisan group, along with the 
administration, feels as I do. The time has come for common-sense 
reform to the Endangered Species Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED:
  S. 1101. A bill to provide for tort liability of firearms dealers who 
transfer firearms in violation of Federal firearms law; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                 gun dealer responsibility act of 1999

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
help turn the tide of gun violence by requiring greater responsibility 
from those in the business of selling weapons.
  Currently, there are over 104,000 federally licensed firearms dealers 
in the United States. While most of these dealers are responsible small 
business people, recent tracing of crime-related guns by the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has found substantial evidence that 
some dealers are selling guns to minors, convicted felons, and others 
who are prohibited by federal law from purchasing firearms. This direct 
diversion of weapons from retail to illegal markets is taking place 
both through off-the-book sales

[[Page S5764]]

by corrupt dealers and through so-called straw purchases, when an 
ineligible buyer has a friend or relative buy a firearm for him.
  While federal law already prohibits a person from transferring a 
firearm when a person knows that the gun will be used to commit a 
crime, it is very difficult for victims of gun violence to seek legal 
redress from gun dealers who sell guns to those prohibited from buying 
firearms. There is very little case law and no federal law giving 
victims of gun violence the right to sue gun dealers who make illegal 
gun sales.
  To remedy this situation, my legislation, the Gun Dealer 
Responsibility Act, would provide a statutory cause of action for 
victims of gun violence against dealers whose illegal sale of a gun 
directly contributes to the victim's injury.
  I believe this legislation will make unscrupulous gun dealers think 
twice about selling weapons to minors, convicted felons, or any other 
ineligible buyer, either directly or through straw purchases.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1101

       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 ``Gun Dealer Responsibility 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Dealer.--The term ``dealer'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 921(a)(11) of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) Firearm.--The term ``firearm'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States 
     Code.
       (3) Law enforcement officer.--The term ``law enforcement 
     officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee of the United 
     States, or of a State or political subdivision thereof, who 
     is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the 
     prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any 
     violation of law.

     SEC. 3. CAUSE OF ACTION; FEDERAL JURISDICTION.

       Any person suffering bodily injury as a result of the 
     discharge of a firearm (or, in the case of a person who is 
     incapacitated or deceased, any person entitled to bring an 
     action on behalf of that person or the estate of that person) 
     may bring an action in any United States district court 
     against any dealer who transferred the firearm to any person 
     in violation of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
     for damages and such other relief as the court deems 
     appropriate. In any action under this section, the court 
     shall allow a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's 
     fee as part of the costs.

     SEC. 4. LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b) of 
     this section, the defendant in an action brought under 
     section 3 shall be held liable in tort, without regard to 
     fault or proof of defect, for all direct and consequential 
     damages that arise from bodily injury or death proximately 
     resulting from the illegal sale of a firearm if it is 
     established by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
     defendant transferred the firearm to any person in violation 
     of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.
       (b) Defenses.--
       (1) Injury while committing a felony.--There shall be no 
     liability under subsection (a) if it is established by a 
     preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff suffered the 
     injury while committing a crime punishable by imprisonment 
     for a term exceeding 1 year.
       (2) Injury by law enforcement officer.--There shall be no 
     liability under subsection (a) if it is established by a 
     preponderance of the evidence that the injury was suffered as 
     a result of the discharge, by a law enforcement officer in 
     the performance of official duties, of a firearm issued by 
     the United States (or any department or agency thereof) or 
     any State (or department, agency, or political subdivision 
     thereof).

     SEC. 5. NO EFFECT ON OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION.

       This Act shall not be construed to limit the scope of any 
     other cause of action available to a person injured as a 
     result of the discharge of a firearm.

     SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.

       This Act applies to any--
       (1) firearm transferred before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) bodily injury or death occurring after such date of 
     enactment.

                          ____________________