[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 116 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8123-H8132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY RELIEF ACT
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 5175) to provide relief to small businesses from liability under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5175
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 ``Small Business Liability
Relief Act''.
SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY RELIEF.
(a) Liability Exemptions.--Section 107 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(o) Small Business De Micromis Exemption.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), a person (including a parent, subsidiary, or affiliate
of the person) that, during its 3 taxable years preceding the
date on which the person first receives or received written
notification from the President of its potential liability
under this section, (A) employed on average not more than 100
full-time individuals (notwithstanding fluctuations resulting
from seasonal employment) or the equivalent thereof, and (B)
had, on average, annual revenues of $3,000,000 or less, as
reported to the Internal Revenue Service, shall be liable
under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a) to the United
States or any other person (including liability for
contribution) for any response costs incurred with respect to
a facility only if the total of material containing a
hazardous substance that the person arranged for disposal or
treatment of, arranged with a transporter for transport for
disposal or treatment of, or
[[Page H8124]]
accepted for transport for disposal or treatment, at the
facility, was greater than 110 gallons of liquid material or
greater than 200 pounds of solid material.
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the
President determines that--
``(A) the material containing a hazardous substance
referred to in paragraph (1) contributed or could contribute
significantly, individually or in the aggregate, to the cost
of the response action with respect to the facility; or
``(B) the person has failed to comply with an
administrative subpoena, has failed to comply with an order
to compel compliance with any request for information issued
by the President under this Act (or is the subject of a civil
action to compel such compliance), or has impeded or is
impeding the performance of a response action with respect to
the facility.
``(3) Time period covered.--Paragraph (1) shall only apply
to material that a person 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, at a facility before the date of the enactment of
the Small Business Liability Relief Act.
``(4) Affiliate defined.--For purposes of this subsection
and subsection (p), the term `affiliate' has the meaning of
that term provided in the definition of `small business
concern' in regulations promulgated by the Small Business
Administration in accordance with the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 631 et seq.).
``(p) Municipal Solid Waste Exemption.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
person may be liable for response costs under paragraph (3)
or (4) of subsection (a) for municipal solid waste at a
facility only if the person is not--
``(A) an owner, operator, or lessee of residential property
from which all of the person's municipal solid waste was
generated with respect to the facility;
``(B) a business entity (including a parent, subsidiary, or
affiliate of the entity) that--
``(i) during its 3 taxable years preceding the date on
which the business entity first receives or received written
notification from the President of its potential liability
under this section, employed on average not more than 100
full-time individuals (notwithstanding significant
fluctuations resulting from seasonal employment), or the
equivalent thereof; and
``(ii) generated all of its municipal solid waste with
respect to the facility; or
``(C) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under
section 501(a) of such Code that, during its taxable year
preceding the date on which the organization first receives
or received written notification from the President of its
potential liability under this section, employed not more
than 100 paid individuals at the location from which was
generated all of the municipal solid waste attributable to
the organization with respect to the facility.
``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person
may be liable under this section if the President determines
that the person has failed to comply with an administrative
subpoena, has failed to comply with an order to compel
compliance with any request for information issued by the
President under this Act (or is the subject of a civil action
to compel such compliance), or has impeded or is impeding the
performance of a response action with respect to the
facility.
``(3) Definition of municipal solid waste.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `municipal solid waste' means waste material--
``(i) generated by a household (including a single or
multifamily residence); and
``(ii) generated by a commercial, institutional, or
industrial source, to the extent that the waste material--
``(I) is essentially the same as waste normally generated
by a household; or
``(II) is collected and disposed of with other municipal
solid waste as part of normal municipal solid waste
collection services and, with respect to each facility from
which the waste material is collected, qualifies for a small
business de micromis exemption under subsection (o).
``(B) Examples.--Examples of municipal solid waste under
subparagraph (A) include 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--
``(i) combustion ash generated by resource recovery
facilities or municipal incinerators; or
``(ii) waste material from manufacturing or processing
operations (including pollution control operations) that is
not essentially the same as waste normally generated by
households.
``(4) Costs and fees.--A person that commences a
contribution action under section 113 shall be liable to the
defendant for all reasonable costs of defending the action,
including all reasonable attorney's fees and expert witness
fees, if the defendant is not liable for contribution based
on an exemption under this subsection or subsection (o).''.
(b) Expedited Settlement for De Minimis Contributions and
Limited Ability To Pay.--
(1) Parties eligible.--Section 122(g) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 9622(g)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as
subparagraph (E);
(B) by striking ``(g)'' and all that follows through the
period at the end of paragraph (1)(A) and inserting the
following:
``(g) Expedited Final Settlement.--
``(1) Parties eligible.--
``(A) In general.--Whenever practicable and in the public
interest, the President shall, as expeditiously as
practicable, notify of eligibility for a settlement, and
offer to reach a final administrative or judicial settlement
with, each potentially responsible party that, in the
judgment of the President, meets 1 or more of the conditions
set forth in subparagraphs (B), (C), and (E).
``(B) De minimis contribution.--The condition for
settlement under this subparagraph is that the liability of
the potentially responsible party is for response costs based
on paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 107 and
the potentially responsible party's contribution of hazardous
substances 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 each of the following criteria are
met:
``(i) The quantity of material containing a hazardous
substance contributed by the potentially responsible party to
the facility is minimal relative to the total quantity of
material containing hazardous substances at the facility. The
quantity of a potentially responsible party's contribution
shall be presumed to be minimal if the quantity is 1 percent
or less of the total quantity of material containing
hazardous substances at the facility, unless the
Administrator establishes a different threshold based on
site-specific factors.
``(ii) 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 hazardous substances at
the facility.
``(C) Reduction in settlement amount based on limited
ability to pay.--
``(i) In general.--The condition for settlement under this
subparagraph is that the potentially responsible party is a
natural person or a small business and demonstrates to the
President an inability or a limited ability to pay response
costs.
``(ii) Considerations.--In determining whether or not a
demonstration is made under clause (i) by 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
consideration of the overall financial condition of the
small business and demonstrable constraints on the ability
of the small business to raise revenues.
``(iii) Information.--A small business requesting
settlement under this subparagraph shall promptly provide the
President with all relevant information needed to determine
the ability of the small business to pay response costs.
``(iv) Alternative payment methods.--If the President
determines that a small business is unable to pay its total
settlement amount at the time of settlement, the President
shall consider such alternative payment methods as may be
necessary or appropriate.
``(D) Additional conditions for expedited settlements.--
``(i) Waiver of claims.--The President shall require, as a
condition for settlement under this paragraph, that a
potentially responsible party waive all of the claims
(including a claim for contribution under section 113) that
the party may have against other potentially responsible
parties for response costs incurred with respect to the
facility, unless the President determines that requiring a
waiver would be unjust.
``(ii) Failure to comply.--The President may decline to
offer a settlement to a potentially responsible party under
this paragraph if the President determines that the
potentially responsible party has failed to comply with any
request for access or information or an administrative
subpoena issued by the President under this Act or has
impeded or is impeding the performance of a response action
with respect to the facility.
``(iii) Responsibility to provide information and access.--
A potentially responsible party that enters into a settlement
under this paragraph shall not be relieved of the
responsibility to provide any information or access requested
in accordance with subsection (e)(3)(B) or section 104(e).'';
(C) in subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) (as redesignated
by subparagraph (A))--
(i) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iii) as
subclauses (I) through (III), respectively, and by moving
such subclauses and the matter following subclause (III) (as
so redesignated) 2 ems to the right;
(ii) by striking ``(E) The potentially responsible party''
and inserting the following:
``(E) Owners of real property.--
``(i) In general.--The condition for settlement 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:
[[Page H8125]]
``(F) Basis of determination.--If the President determines
that a potentially responsible party is not eligible for
settlement under this paragraph, the President shall provide
the reasons for the determination in writing to any
potentially responsible party that requests a settlement
under this paragraph.
``(G) No judicial review.--A determination by the President
under this paragraph shall not be subject to judicial review.
``(H) Definition of small business.--In this paragraph, the
term `small business' means a business entity that, during
its 3 taxable years preceding the date on which the business
entity first receives or received written notification from
the President of its potential liability under section 107,
employed on average not more than 100 full-time individuals
(notwithstanding fluctuations resulting from seasonal
employment) or the equivalent thereof.''.
(2) Settlement offers.--Such section 122(g) is further
amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (9); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) Settlement offers.--
``(A) Notification and offer.--As soon as practicable after
receipt of sufficient information to make a determination,
the President shall--
``(i) notify any person that the President determines is
eligible under paragraph (1) of the person's eligibility for
an expedited settlement; and
``(ii) submit a written settlement offer to such person.
``(B) Information.--At the time at which the President
submits an offer under this subsection, the President shall
make available, at the request of the recipient of the offer,
to the recipient any information available under section 552
of title 5, United States Code, on which the President 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.
``(7) Litigation moratorium.--
``(A) In general.--No person that has received notification
from the President under paragraph (6) that the person is
eligible for an expedited settlement with respect to a
facility under paragraph (1) shall be named as a defendant in
any action under this Act for recovery of response costs
(including an action for contribution) with respect to the
facility during the period--
``(i) beginning on the date on which the person receives
from the President written notice of the person's potential
liability and notice that the person is a party that may
qualify for an expedited settlement with respect to the
facility; and
``(ii) ending on the earlier of--
``(I) the date that is 90 days after the date on which the
President tenders a written settlement offer to the person
with respect to the facility; or
``(II) the date that is 1 year after receipt of notice from
the President that the person may qualify for an expedited
settlement with respect to the facility.
``(B) Suspension of period of limitation.--The period of
limitation under section 113(g) applicable to a claim against
a person described in subparagraph (A) for response costs,
natural resource damages, or contribution shall be suspended
during the period described in subparagraph (A).
``(8) Notice of settlement.--After a settlement under this
subsection becomes final with respect to a facility, the
President shall promptly notify potentially responsible
parties at the facility that have not resolved their
liability to the United States of the settlement.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECT ON CONCLUDED ACTIONS.
The amendments made by this Act shall not be a basis for
challenging the enforceability of any settlement lodged in,
or judgment issued by, a United States District Court before
the date of the enactment of this Act against a person who is
a party to the settlement or against whom the judgment has
been issued.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Towns) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
General Leave
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for passage
of H.R. 5175, the Small Business Liability Relief Act. I introduced
this legislation along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert)
and a bipartisan group of cosponsors in order to provide long overdue
liability relief to individuals, families, and small business owners
unfairly trapped in the litigation nightmare of the Superfund program
for over 2 decades.
The Superfund is in bad need of reform. I have worked for years to
enact comprehensive and meaningful Superfund reform to create a fairer
liability scheme for the Superfund program. Unfortunately, it appears
unlikely that we will be able to accomplish broader reform this year.
But that does not mean that we cannot make real progress. It is time to
provide relief to innocent parties like Barbara Williams, the former
owner of Sunny Ray Restaurant in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and to Greg
Shierling, the owner of two McDonald's restaurants in Quincy, Illinois,
as well as thousands of others just like them whose only crime as small
business owners was sending ordinary garbage to the local dump.
H.R. 5175 provides relief to innocent small businesses who never
should have been brought into Superfund in the first place. First, it
provides liability protection to small businesses who disposed of very
small amounts of waste. Second, it provides relief for small businesses
who disposed of ordinary garbage. Third, it provides shelter from
costly litigation for small businesses who dispose of small amounts of
waste and parties who face serious financial hardship by directing the
Federal Government to offer these parties expedited settlements to
remove them from the web of Superfund litigation.
This bill provides relief for innocent small businesses with up to
100 employees and revenues of not more than $3 million. It is limited
to common garbage and ordinary garbage that may have small
contributions of other waste. If the waste that a small business sends
to a site causes big environmental problems, then the liability
exemptions would no longer apply.
I would point out that some who have criticized our definition of a
small business have actually voted for exemptions that do not include
any business size restriction whatsoever. Moreover, the
administration's current de micromis policy applies more broadly than
this bill to any size company.
In addition, H.R. 5175 shifts the burden of proof under Superfund to
the government when it goes after small businesses. I do not believe
that small businesses should be presumed guilty and be forced to hire
and pay for attorneys to prove their innocence. This is fundamentally
wrong and unfair. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. The
government or larger businesses should have the burden of providing
evidence, solid evidence, that small businesses are liable before
demanding cash settlements.
It is hard to think of anything in Congress that has been more open
and public than Superfund reform. Protections for innocent parties in
H.R. 5175, including de micromis relief, relief for ordinary garbage,
and expedited settlements, were included in both H.R. 2580 and H.R.
1300, the broader bipartisan Superfund bills reported this Congress
from the Committees on Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure,
respectively.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, I
have personally conducted 6 years of Superfund hearings. In fact, in
just the House alone, there have been a combined 46 hearings on
Superfund with testimony from 416 witnesses. At those hearings we have
heard the administration, environmentalists, and businesses all tell us
that innocent small businesses were never meant to be in Superfund in
the first place. I am entering some of these statements into the
Record.
{time} 1700
Mr. Speaker, even in the last few weeks, to accommodate concerns
about the legislation, we have met with the EPA and others and
redrafted the legislation to address their concerns. The bill on the
floor today reflects those changes.
While it is unfortunate that EPA does not yet support the
legislation, the fact remains that we have gone way above and beyond
the call of duty in trying to address concerns raised, and we have
asked repeatedly for any specific written proposals to address
outstanding concerns with the legislation, but received nothing.
For thousands of small business owners across America who have
already been dragged into litigation or forced to pay cash settlements
for legally putting out their trash, this bill most likely comes too
late. But in just the last
[[Page H8126]]
7 days, we have received letters, faxes and e-mails from small business
owners around the country who need our help. This is an example of some
of the letters we have received just over the last week.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask Members to please join me and other
bipartisan cosponsors today in saying enough is enough, and let us pass
this narrowly targeted Small Business Liability Relief Act so these
other innocent small businesses can be spared the litigation nightmare
that has already befallen so many.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.
Superfund is a Small Business Litigation Nightmare
for the record: what they've said
Environmental Protection Agency
``If you are a small business, if you sent garbage, like
the stuff you and I put out every Monday evening for the
garbage company to pick up, you should never hear the word
Superfund. I think there is not a person up here who doesn't
agree with that. We have worked hard within the current law
to protect these small parties, but we cannot do it without a
fix in the law in the way that we all agree it needs to be
done.''--Testimony of Carol Browner, EPA Administrator,
before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, May
12, 1999
``We have tried to solve the problem of the little people
from day one. The owner of the diner who sends mashed
potatoes to the local dump should not have to worry about
being sued by large corporate polluters who are responsible
for the contamination of that site. Innocent landowners,
churches, Girl Scout troops, small storefront businesses
should not have to wonder if they will find themselves
brought into the Superfund net by large corporate polluters.
``Unfortunately, this is what happens; this is what has
happened; and this is what will continue to happen if we
don't rewrite this law. It is a tragedy. It is wrong. It is a
flaw in the current law. We have to fix it.''--Testimony of
Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, before the Water Resources
and Environment Subcommittee, October 29, 1997
Environmentalists
``It is inefficient to sue a bunch of companies that will
clearly be unable to make any significant contribution to
cleanup costs; doing so merely increases transaction costs
for all concerned without providing funds for actual cleanup,
and leads to delays in decisionmaking.''--Testimony of Karen
Florini, Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund, before
the Water Resources and Environmental Subcommittee, October
29, 1997
``We agree that many small businesses and minimal waste
contributors have been unfairly subjected to harassment under
the CERCLA statute. . . . We suggest an exemption for parties
who only contributed household-type wastes to sites,
liability waivers for those who only sent tiny amounts of
hazardous materials to a site--that is, de micromis
contributors--and aggressive settlements with parties who
sent small amounts of hazardous substances to a site but
still have some ability to pay toward cleanup--this is, de
minimis contributors.''--Testimony of Jacqueline Hamilton,
Senior Project Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council,
before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee,
April 10, 1997
``NWF also has heard the concerns of people who only have
tangential ties to a Superfund site. These mom and pop
entities, often cited as de micromis parties, deserve relief
from the system.''--Testimony of Patricia Williams, Counsel
and Legislative Representative, National Wildlife Federation,
before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, June
21, 1995
Small businesses
``For my company it started on February 10, 1999 when we
received a letter in the mail from the EPA that stated 6
large local corporations and the city were looking to recover
some of their costs for the cleanup of our local landfill.
Even though the majority of what we had hauled there was only
trash and legally disposed of at the time, the EPA said . . .
we were potentially responsible for paying our proportional
share of that cleanup.
``When I read the letter, I felt sick. For me and the 148
other companies that received the letter, it was unexpected
and without warning . . . It was asking us, as small
companies to `contribute' 3.1 million dollars . . .
``. . . the EPA sent one of their attorneys . . . Many
people stood up and pleaded their situations and how unfair
and un-American this whole situation was. He admitted to
everyone that the law was probably unfair and very harsh . .
. he couldn't do anything about its unfairness . . . he said
that it was all he had to work with.''--Testimony of Mike
Nobis, JK Creative Printers before the Subcommittee on
Finance and Hazardous Materials, September 22, 1999
``Even those who paid their assessments can't put the
situation behind them . . . different agencies could come
after them for additional money . . . `By paying, I thought
we had closure, says Eldor Hadler, whose truck dealership was
assessed $46,000. He recently sold his business to his son
and another partner . . . `There's a dark cloud hanging over
the business,' he says, `They could come back any time'.''
``The fight continues for Greg Shierling . . . He was in
grade school in the '60s and '70s when his parents hired [a
trash disposal company] to take away the garbage from
their McDonald's . . . Shierling took over the business
from his parents in 1996 and was dumbfounded when he got
the letter from the EPA in 1999 telling him he was a
polluter to the tune of $65,000. Shock turned to defiance,
and he's refusing to settle--even though the feds reduced
his fine to $47,000.
Meanwhile, Shierling is paying $4,000 a month in legal
bills and faces a six figure judgement if he loses. He has
been forced to lay off two longtime employees, and says his
parents are drawing on their retirement money to help him and
his wife support their two young children. Firing loyal
workers was one of the hardest things he's ever had to do, he
says. He had written a prepared script to help him maintain
his composure, but he says he burst into tears any way. Yet
he refuses to buckle under. ``I just couldn't feel good about
saying, `I'm sorry, here's $47,000, I'm out' . . .''
``Many of those who settle still seethe about the situation
. . . Pat McClean . . . was hit for $21,900. He says his
trash consisted of chicken bones, potato peelings and soiled
napkins. He thought about fighting, but he was demoralized by
a recent divorce. McClean is a weekend biker who likens the
assessment to a shakedown. `Paying that $21,900 was like
buying a brand new Harley, loading it up with chrome, and
handing it over to the EPA' he says.''--From ``Unintended
Victims'' by Eric Berkman, Fortune Small Business, July/
August 2000
``Most of the cost contributed by our companies to this
site didn't clean one ounce of the landfill . . . Of all the
money spent, the attorneys received the most . . . It has
been reported in our local newspaper that the EPA and the
major [potentially responsible parties] PRP's are now suing
many of these companies who didn't settle, resulting in more
business for the attorneys. As I understand it, these
companies will be allowed in later months to bring third
party lawsuits. Where will it end? I do not think the law's
intent is to place hardships on small business when the
ultimate winners are the attorneys, not the environment.
``Who were the companies forced to pay this settlement . .
. Some are people in their retirement years. Some are widows
whose husbands passed away and they now have this settlement
to deal with. Some are sons whose fathers once owned the
business and now, years later, they have inherited the
problem
. . . Mothers and fathers would have been reluctant to pass
a family business--and its liability--to the next generation.
We have some men in their late 70's and early 80's that could
lose their life's savings when they should be enjoying their
retirement years. They are spending their time and money
paying the EPA for something they did 25 years ago that was
legal . . .
. . . It is needless business pressures like this that
destroy small businesses and cause undue pain and hardship.
Victimizing small business is not going to help speed the
cleanup of Superfund sites.'' Testimony of Mike Nobis, JK
Creative Printers before the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials, September 22, 1999
``When examining the few sites that have been cleaned up,
the costs associated with such cleanups, coupled with the
staggering amount of money that has gone directly to lawyers'
coffers, it's easy to see that the fault and liability system
currently in Superfund is flawed. Congress may have
envisioned a system that would only catch the few, large,
intentional or irresponsible polluters, however, the reality
has been very different.
. . . The effect of the current liability system is
permeating all segments of the small business community. No
issue in this very complex public policy debate will have a
more direct impact on the present and future economic
viability of many small businesses . . . There isn't one
segment whether it be a retail store, a professional service
business, or a construction business that has not been
touched.''--Statement for the Record by National Federation
of Independent Business (NFIB), for the Subcommittee on
Superfund, Waste Control & Risk Assessment, Senate Committee
on the Environment and Public Works, March 5, 1997
``I am a fourth party defendant in the Keystone Superfund
lawsuit. I have been sued by my friends and neighbors. Why
did they do this? Upon the advice of attorneys bringing
others into the suit, this was the only way they could lessen
the amount of their settlements . . . I am being sued for
$76,253.71 . . .
This legal action has angered, depressed and confused me .
. . I obeyed, State, local and Federal regulations. Being
forced to defend myself is a travesty of justice. Being
forced to pay this settlement would be devastating to my
business. Has anyone considered the effect on my employees
and their families. Has anyone considered the effect on our
community? . . . What is the Superfund law accomplishing? The
attorneys are making a fortune, small businesses are unfairly
burdened, and the contamination still isn't cleaned up.''--
Statement of Barbara A. Williams, former owner, Sunny Ray
Restaurant, Gettysburg, PA, before the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, April 23, 1996
``In October 1997, you and I were featured in a `60
Minutes' segment on how the Superfund law unfairly victimizes
small-business
[[Page H8127]]
owers. Since that time you have moved to Washington and I
have sold my business. While I congratulate you on your
recent appointment as the number two official at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, I have not been as
fortunate. The sale of my business (Sunny Ray Restaurant) was
hampered by the liability forced upon me by the Superfund
law. I remain personally liable in the ongoing litigation
related to the Keystone Landfill Superfund site. While you
and I have publicly agreed that this is a gross miscarriage
of justice, the law remains unchanged . . . It will soon be
five years since I was brought into this lawsuit. Isn't it
time for it to end? Please . . . --Letter from Barbara A.
Williams to Michael McCabe, Deputy Administrator of EPA,
August 24, 2000.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. In this body,
we normally consider noncontroversial bills on the suspension calendar.
Let me assure you, there is a lot of controversy around this bill, as
well as confusion and even misrepresentation associated with the bill.
I have letters from the administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Business Roundtable, the New York Attorney General and
various environmental groups opposing this bill.
Mr. Speaker, there is opposition to this bill; yet the proponents of
this bill would have you believe otherwise. I suppose anyone could get
confused, since many of us on both sides of the aisle have agreed for
years that clarification of Superfund liability for small businesses
and small contributors to the cost of cleanup is a mutually desirable
goal. However, while we may have widespread agreement on the goal, we
certainly do not have agreement on H.R. 5175.
As my colleagues know, I have been a proponent of Superfund reform.
Despite my often-stated willingness to work on this issue, my
colleagues introduced H.R. 5175 without any discussion with this side
and did not follow the normal committee process for consideration of
legislation. This bill was already scheduled for consideration on this
suspension calendar when my staff was first invited to provide our
concerns about the bill.
Unfortunately, the proponents of the bill have chosen to ignore some
of our most significant concerns, as well as our suggestions to
postpone floor consideration in order to continue our discussion. We
want to work with you, but you must give us an opportunity to do so.
Given this rush, this closed-door, back-door, whatever process they
use, I am not surprised that there are mistakes and problems with this
bill. New York Attorney General Spitzer, whom I have great respect for,
writes that ``many companies and individuals who knowingly violated
hazardous waste laws would receive exemptions from liability.''
I agree with the attorney general that deliberate violators of
environmental laws should not be excused from liability, and I believe
we should make certain this bill does not produce such results.
The attorney general fears that ``hundreds of millions of dollars in
costs would be shifted from responsible parties to the State and
Federal taxpayers.'' I am very concerned about these statements,
especially coming from the primary enforcing authority of our
environmental laws in New York.
Mr. Speaker, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will
once again reach out to my colleagues and ask that we work together in
a bipartisan and consensus fashion to craft a bill that is truly
noncontroversial and ripe for consideration on the suspension calendar.
Unfortunately, this bill is not.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who has been such a leader on
this critical issue.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5175 will end Superfund litigation
for the overwhelming number of small businesses across America. That is
what we are here about.
As most of my colleagues know, I am a very strong proponent of
Superfund reform. Superfund remains a program with flaws, flaws that
need to be corrected. This is not to say that changes have not been
made, adjustments have not been made, that some progress has not been
made; but we need to correct the flaws, and exempting small business is
one of the most glaring flaws in the whole bill.
My Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment have held 13
hearings on the Superfund program. I have heard from dozens of
witnesses from small businesses one horror story after another. Let me
give you an example.
Mr. Lefelar testified before us. He owns Clifton Adhesive. He was
brought into litigation in the GEMS Superfund case in New Jersey
because his company's name was written on a ticket for a toll bridge
that a waste hauler had in his records. That was it, one toll bridge
ticket from 1974. He had no records from 1974 to prove that he did not
send waste to the GEMS site, so he was stuck in litigation for 8 years
and spent $450,000 in legal fees.
Here is what he told the committee: ``The pressure was unbelievable
for me. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were being mentioned, possible
litigation personally, lifetime personal assets were at risk, loss of
home. I was really becoming desperate at this time. About 3 years into
this suit, I had to take a look at how much more money we could expend,
and we were teetering, actually, it drove us to teetering on the brink
of bankruptcy, and here is a company that had been operating since
1945.''
Do you know why it was brought into the scheme? Because of one toll
ticket.
I have heard from the environmental community. Let me tell you what
the NRDC said: ``We suggest an exemption for parties who only
contributed household-type waste to sites, liability waivers for those
who only sent tiny amounts of hazardous materials to a site, that is,
de micromis contributors, and aggressive settlements with parties who
sent small amounts of hazardous substances to a site, but still have
some ability to pay toward cleanup, that is de minimis contributors.''
That is what the environmental community said. I agreed with them
then; I agree with them now.
Administrator Browner, here is what she said last year: ``If you are
a small business, if you sent garbage, like the stuff you and I put out
every Monday evening,'' it is Wednesday with me, ``for the garbage
company to pick up, you should never hear the word Superfund. I think
there is not a person up here who does not agree with that.'' So said
Administrator Browner. I agreed with her then; I agree with her now.
Let me tell you, I feel particularly close to the environmental
community. I am proud of that affiliation. The Sierra Club and the
League of Conservation Voters, sent a letter on the 21st of September
outlining some concerns. I would like to be responsive to their
concerns, because I think that they are responsible organizations for
the most part.
First the LCV letter sent on the 21st of September claims that H.R.
5175, as introduced, could relieve liability for more than small
businesses because it did not specify that the employees and revenues
of the parent corporations or subsidiaries or affiliates are considered
when determining whether a business is small. That is a legitimate
concern. The authors of H.R. 5175 never intended to include parents or
the big guys. In short, the problem is fixed by this bill.
Second, the LCV letter addresses other concerns that LCV has in the
letter. Let me report that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and I
with our Democrat colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, addressed those
concerns and remediated them.
It is time to get the small businesses all across America out of this
litigation quagmire. It just is not fair to them, and it is not fair to
us to argue on this floor about policy supposedly, when it is really
politics below the surface that is driving the opposition.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5175, the Small Business
Liability Relief Act. For years now, Members on both sides of the aisle
and the administration have been talking about taking
[[Page H8128]]
certain individuals and truly small businesses out of the Superfund
debate.
Since 1994, there has been little disagreement that people who sent
garbage to a landfill were unintended targets of the Superfund law. The
question has not been whether we should provide liability relief. The
question has always been how, and, secondly, who should be eligible.
On the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure under the
leadership of our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Boehlert), we worked to resolve this issue in what we believed was
a fair and equitable solution to the problems of small business
liability under Superfund.
This agreement was included in the legislation that was approved by
our committee last summer with overwhelmingly bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, no further action has occurred on that bill.
Mr. Speaker, that agreement is not represented in this legislation.
In their zeal to pass smaller pieces of the broader Superfund reforms,
the proponents of this legislation have chosen instead to grant a
blanket absolution for many small businesses from Superfund liability,
effectively tying the hands of government in its efforts to prosecute
the polluters and shifting the cost of cleanup to the other parties at
a site.
This bill would turn U.S. jurisprudence relating to Superfund on its
head by shifting the burden of proof from the party seeking the
exemption from liability to the Federal Government. Under this bill,
the government would have the burden of establishing that a small
business was not entitled to exemption because it shipped more than an
allowable amount of toxic waste. Remember, this is toxic waste, not
harmless trash.
If the government cannot meet this burden, the small business would
be exempt from liability, regardless of how toxic the materials they
sent for disposal or the threat to human health and the environment
from their actions.
The government's burden under this legislation is made even more
difficult because the information that the Environmental Protection
Agency or the Department of Justice would need to meet this burden is
held by the small business, with little incentive for those who would
otherwise be liable to turn over such information to the government.
Mr. Speaker, providing liability relief for small business should not
be a partisan issue.
Unfortunately, this legislation was developed and drafted without the
participation of Democratic leadership of either the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure or the Committee on Commerce. In
fact, the only bipartisan conversations scheduled on this bill were
under the condition that, regardless of the outcome, the bill would
remain on today's suspension calendar. This is not a way to draft
legislation on a subject that, at least in concept, could have the
support of all the principal parties involved in the Superfund debate.
Also, this is not the way the issues are traditionally handled by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Despite major disagreements on issues, including Superfund reform,
under the leadership of our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar), we have been able to bridge the gap and work together
in drafting good, bipartisan legislation. It has been this commitment
to work together that has made our committee effective in reaching
consensus on difficult issues. That has not been the case with this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on this bill.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, my citizens and colleagues and friends in
Quincy, Illinois, will not believe this debate, because I want to share
with you the story that they have been through.
Nearly 8 years after the landfill closed, the city landfill in
Quincy, Illinois, the site was placed on the Superfund National
Priorities list and the EPA began working with the city and several
large waste contributors to clean up the site.
This is where the proposed order comes into play. Superfund allows
EPA and other potential responsible parties to seek contributions from
innocent small businesses to pay for the cleanup.
{time} 1715
In Quincy that equals $3 million from 159 small businesses averaging
$160,000 per business. The EPA asked Quincy bowling alleys, dairy farms
and family-owned restaurants to pay as much as $160,000 per business,
despite the fact that these businesses did nothing wrong.
For some small businesses, the amounts they are being asked to pay
will mean the difference between breaking even or losing money. Simply
put, the current law is costing hard-working American citizens their
jobs and their livelihood.
Quincy, Illinois and Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, have been two
Superfund sites that we find in the media. However, those two
litigation nightmares could happen in any of these Superfund landfills
across the United States:
Boaz, Alabama; Alviso, California; Bridgeton, Missouri; Ackerman,
Mississippi; Texas City, Texas; Jacksonville, Florida; Wheatcroft,
Kentucky; Charleston, West Virginia; Hominy, Oklahoma; Browning,
Montana.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues that their time will come. Their
small businesses will be hit by this litigation nightmare and they will
close their doors to pay their fees. For this reason I ask this House
to support H.R. 5175 and provide relief for the ``Mom and Pop''
businesses across this Nation.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
It was only introduced 10 days ago. Copies of the legislation have
never been made available to the minority, because the bill has been
changed significantly between the time it was introduced and between
the time that we are now considering it.
No hearings have been heard. No one has been able to comment
efficiently on this. There have been no comments requested from the
administration or any other interested parties.
Now, I, like my colleagues on this side of the aisle, favor proper
legislation that would establish an exemption from Superfund liability
for any person or company, large or small, if they could establish that
they sent only a small amount of toxic waste to a site. We have
followed established precedents and put the burden on persons who had
the facts and records available to show that the toxic waste they sent
was less than a threshold amount. That is the proper way. That is how
it should be done.
In short, then, the person seeking the benefit from that exemption
must demonstrate that he or she qualifies for the exemption. That is
how it should be for toxic waste such as dioxins, PCBs, and other
noxious and harmful materials.
The legislation before us, unseen, unheard by any committee of this
body, turns legal precedents on their head. It creates incentive for
businesses or entities to destroy or lose records, or to engage in
other rascality, to achieve a preference at the expense of all of the
American people. As a result, the other parties at the site, the State
or the Federal Government, would have to bear clean-up costs under this
legislation, whether the person who was getting the exemption on the
basis of a burden imposed upon the Federal Government has achieved a
relief from the requirements of law.
This is, I think, why the Business Roundtable, the Justice
Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the entire
environmental community and the New York Attorney General have written
in opposition to this legislation. They know that it is neither fair
nor proper and they know that it has not been properly heard by any
committee of the Congress, and no person has been invited to appear
here before us to tell us the facts with regard to this legislation.
[[Page H8129]]
The legislation is not the legislation which was introduced. The only
thing that has been presented to the minority is this curious document,
which is not the document which is before us, but which is somewhat
changed. This is the way in which we achieve a bad reputation for this
body, by bringing legislation to this Congress which is not properly
heard and without proper opportunity for consultation or careful
consideration.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, it is opposed by almost everyone who has
had the opportunity to view it: The League of Conservation Voters, the
Business Roundtable, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Department of Justice, the Attorney General of the State of New York,
the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Water
Action, Friends of the Earth, Environmental Defense all oppose this,
both because of the procedure and because of the unfair and improper
substance.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), who has a very interesting and poignant
story about the problems of Superfund.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my colleagues that I
hope none will ever have to go through what I have gone through during
the last 8 years, I have had to sit there idly because there was
nothing I could do and watch 700 small businesses lose their
livelihood. Why did they lose their livelihood? For doing exactly what
the State and local government said they had to do with their waste:
Put it in the landfill.
The restaurants put the same thing in the landfill that my colleagues
and I put in the landfill every day. The wastes from our tables. But
yet they have had to go out of business. Why? They have had to pay
lawyers day after day after day. They got swept into this because the
biggies, first of all, the owner decided that he would get the next
eight. And the next eight big contributors to the landfill decided they
will get the other 700, who had to do exactly what they did.
So I would hope that this legislation, which will not help my people,
it is too late for my people, but I sure hope that none of my
colleagues will have to go through what I have had to go through during
the last 8 years watching 700 small businesses being put out of
business simply because they did what they were instructed to do and
what the law told them they had to do.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Towns) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill developed through a bad process, and
ought to be badly defeated. It has a disarming title: Small Business
Liability Relief. But it is nothing other than a wolf in sheep's
clothing.
It relieves large businesses of the responsibility for cleanup of
toxic wastes such as dioxin, PCBs, nerve gas, by simply letting them
include those substances in their trash. That is an egregious
circumvention of the Superfund law.
It puts at risk the health and welfare of the public in order to give
oil, chemical and other industries a windfall benefit. Our Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure worked for 6 years to develop a
bipartisan bill that could have broad support. We reported that bill
out by a vote of 69 to 2. It may not be perfect, but it reflects good
faith and hard work. This bill does not.
Our bill addressed responsible liability relief for small businesses
and makes the liability system more flexible and fair for all parties.
This bill does not. The key element of our bill was that it was paid
for. It called for the reinstatement of Superfund taxes, guaranteeing
cleanup for the next 8 years. This bill creates a favored class of
businesses, absolves them of liability, and leaves it up to taxpayers
and other parties to pick up the tab.
Since the Superfund taxes expired in 1995, oil, chemical and other
industries have enjoyed a $4 million a day tax break, a tax holiday
from the refusal to reinstate taxes to pay for Superfund cleanups. They
have saved over $6 billion. As the gentleman from Ohio has said, enough
indeed is enough.
Mr. Speaker, the majority's refusal to reinstate Superfund taxes is
shifting the cost of cleanup on to the taxpayer and States who are
footing that bill. This year alone half of the nearly $1.5 billion in
Superfund costs was taken from general revenues. We are borrowing from
the future, our surplus, in order to provide a $4 million a day tax
break for America's biggest polluters. That is wrong.
We ought to be addressing all of Superfund's needs instead of this
flawed legislation. We ought to vote ``no'' on this bad bill.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley) has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Towns) has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this good bill
developed under a less-than-perfect process for a much, much-needed
solution. Much-needed relief to individuals, families, and small
businesses that have been unfairly trapped in the litigation nightmare
of the Superfund program for the crime of sending ordinary garbage to
their local landfill.
It is needless business pressures like this that cause undue pain and
hardship for small business. Furthermore, victimizing small business is
not going to speed the cleanup of Superfund sites.
This bill will put an end to the current Superfund philosophy that
treats small business owners as ``guilty until they prove themselves
innocent.'' H.R. 5175 ensures that small business owners are considered
innocent until it can be proven they are liable. Furthermore, this
legislation limits frivolous lawsuits. A small business' legal fees can
be recovered if a small business is wrongly accused of contributing to
a Superfund site.
In the end, H.R. 5175 fairly shifts the burden of proof, discourages
abusive litigation, and finally focuses resources on the actual cleanup
of toxic sites. Granted, broader Superfund reform is sorely needed. But
small business liability relief simply cannot wait any longer.
The Environmental Protection Agency has said on a number of occasions
that it supports efforts that will fix the Superfund law so it targets
real polluters and not innocent small businesses. The delicate fabric
compromise between the industry and environmentalists have helped
advance the bipartisan Small Business Liability Relief Act, further
paving the way to common ground.
All of this being said, with the methods that we have gotten here
today, I support this consensus legislation that has been
enthusiastically endorsed by the National Federation of Independent
Business in order to help rescue innocent small businesses from the
Superfund liability trap. With so many points of consensus covered
under H.R. 5175 and strong bipartisan support, I am hopeful that my
fellow colleagues will join me in passing this measure, marking an end
to this unfair system and freeing small business owners from
unnecessary liability.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak.)
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. As a
Member who sits on the Committee on Commerce, I have expressed interest
during numerous committee hearings in clarifying the liability for
small businesses under Superfund law.
In 1997, I introduced H.R. 2485, along with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley),
and Mr. McHale. In 1999, I introduced H.R. 2940. Both of these bills
contained provisions that clarify liability for small businesses. Both
of these bills would have provided the relief for Barbara Williams of
the Keystone Landfill, as well as other similarly situated small
businesses. But for years these bills have languished while my majority
colleagues held small business hostage to
[[Page H8130]]
large, cumbersome, and very controversial Superfund bills.
Now in the closing days of this session, and coincidentally close to
the elections, my majority colleagues have introduced and
simultaneously scheduled this bill for floor action. Yes, we have had
hearings on various Superfund bills in committee, but we have not ever
examined this bill. We have never had a hearing. We have never had a
markup.
In fact, even since it's introduction 10 days ago, this bill has been
a moving target. Late last night, the NFIB was calling committee staff
proposing additional changes to the bill, yet they refused to postpone
the vote on this bill even for a week so that discussions could take
place and Members could be informed.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we have a product today that none of us
are familiar with and that is opposed by the administration, majority
environmental groups like Clean Water Action, the Association of Trial
Lawyers of America, and the Business Roundtable.
I ask my colleagues are we playing politics or are we serious about
enacting a public law that effectuates good public policy? Let us at
least have a chance to review the bill. Democrats would like to have a
bill to give greater relief for small businesses, the American Legion,
and any other innocent contributor to a landfill. But we must reject
this bill as it is being brought to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, it has been said several times on the
floor that we have had no hearings. That is absolutely ludicrous. Year
after year in the Committee on Commerce and in the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, we have had hearings. Extensive
hearings. Hours and hours and hours and hours of hearings. Dozens of
witnesses, one after another. And all from the small business community
have said the same thing repeatedly: Get us out of this litigation
quagmire. It just is not fair.
We are talking about somebody from Pennsylvania being in the
litigation scheme because she sent mashed potatoes to a landfill. We
are talking about someone in New York, a small business, being in this
litigation quagmire because the small business sent an empty pizza box
to the landfill.
{time} 1730
That is absolutely scandalous. What this is all about, when all is
said and done, it is about pure politics trying to trump responsible
public policy.
There are those fortunately in the minority in numbers who do not
want this Congress to do anything constructive this close to
legislation. There are those of us from both parties who fortunately
will make the majority, when the vote is taken, who are concentrating
on shaping responsible public policy, because we are convinced in the
final analysis that Republicans and Democrats alike will gain from
shaping public policy in a responsible way.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that exempting small businesses under
very strict conditions is responsible public policy. Guess what? That
is what the administration says it wants to do; that is what the
administrator of EPA says what it wants to do; that is what
environmental groups want to do; that is what we want to do; and that
is what my colleagues should want to do.
This is responsible action to deal with a very legitimate problem in
a very responsible way.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, there have been a lot of
hearings on Superfund; there have been a lot of hearings on a lot of
issues. We admit that. There just have not been any hearings on this
bill. Nobody has any idea what is in this bill. This is a little
process put together, a secret process. We were not told that there
were going to be meetings. We had no ideas which rooms to go to. So the
Democrats were not allowed in the room. So it is their own bill.
There were no hearings on it. They do not want to have this bill to
have to withstand the scrutiny of public examination, so they just
bring it in here today and they say they support taking care of small
businesses. Well, we all support taking care of small businesses, we
do. That is not the debate here.
The real issue is, by reforming Superfund, by passing this bill, it
is a lot like losing weight by swallowing a tapeworm. Yeah, you will
get the desired results, but you are going to have a host of additional
problems as well. My colleagues are not willing to let everybody here
talk about it in public.
Let me go down a few of the things that are wrong with it in our
cursory examination of it. The idea is to get these small companies out
of the cleanup process who have only contributed a small amount of
toxic waste, but the problem with the bill is, they put the burden on
the States and on the Federal Government. They do not have the records.
The little companies do.
The little companies should come in with the records to get
themselves out of trouble; otherwise we are not going to know if some
of these little companies did some bad things, but at least they should
have the responsibility of bringing all of the information in.
As well it is going to spawn more litigation, rather than less,
because it reopens already decided administrative hearings. By the way,
my colleagues have done an amazing job. My colleagues have the EPA and
the environmental groups and the Business Roundtable all opposed to it.
That is an impossible triple. That is the 1-7-10 split in bowling.
My colleagues cannot get the Business Roundtable and the
environmentalists opposed to a bill; it is impossible. What my
colleagues have done is created a toxic combination of bad policy and
bad procedures which contaminate the House procedures, the whole House,
because Democrats are not allowed in the room.
Mr. Speaker, the only way to clean up the mess is to defeat the bill
out here on the House floor this evening.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, let us be real here. We are not talking
about people who send their mashed potatoes or their parking stubs to a
garbage site. Everyone in this room and everyone in the Congress shares
the same goal, of giving relief to bona fide small businesses who are
unfairly targeted in Superfund cleanups.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, as we have heard, there are several excellent
bills pending which would achieve this goal, but this bill is filled
with corporate loopholes big enough to drive a fleet of garbage trucks
through. It is naive to think that by slapping the small business label
on this title of legislation Congress would pass a bill that fails to
provide real Superfund reform and jeopardizes toxic waste cleanup.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Members see through this and work to pass
legislation that will protect individuals and communities, not
corporate interests. This legislation, first of all, applies to
businesses of 100 employees without consideration of affiliation and
not true small businesses whose contributions to the site are small and
the costs of cleanup not significant.
This bill also reverses years of U.S. jurisprudence by shifting the
burden for the potential wrongdoing from the wrongdoer to the
government.
Mr. Speaker, this big business giveaway is likely to span new
litigation and reopen long-closed Superfund cases in an attempt to
absolve big business of its responsibility to clean up the toxic messes
that it created. It creates incentives for corporate cover-ups so that
businesses can hide their responsibility and avoid paying to clean up
the contamination. Let us really get serious here.
It is time to pass real Superfund reform that protects true small
businesses and communities by assuring that responsible parties clean
up their toxic waste. Vote no on H.R. 5175.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill as a member
of the Committee on Commerce. I am outraged that we were not able to
have any kind of hearings.
[[Page H8131]]
Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed that we are here today to vote on H.R.
5175, the Small Business Liability Relief Act. I serve on the Commerce
Committee and the relevant subcommittee and I have not seen this bill
in a mark-up as of yet. We all want liability relief for small
businesses. No one wants to burden small business with the tumultuous
process of determining responsible parties of a hazardous waste site.
The bill before us addresses some real concerns but we have not had
the time to deliberate some of the more contentious issues. The bill
provides blanket immunity for businesses under 100 employees. These are
hardly small businesses and in some cases these companies could be the
main polluter. In fact, the ambiguous language creates loopholes that
would effectually exempt large businesses from paying their share for
polluting a particular site. It puts the burden back on taxpayers to
cover cleanup costs. The EPA, opposes the bill, the New York Attorney
General opposes the bill, and I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues
to vote no on H.R. 5175.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, let me address one of the consequences of
this bill, which I hope is unintended but would nevertheless occur.
Many of the hazardous waste sites in New York, for example, and in many
other States particularly up and down the Eastern Seaboard, were caused
or created in whole or in part by small business which are nevertheless
controlled by organized crime. We have organized crime dumpers who have
been responsible for most of the toxic waste dump sites in the State of
New York and in a number of other places up and down the Eastern
Seaboard.
This legislation I hope unintentionally would exempt those organized
crime cartels who are in many cases the sources of the contamination
and who are in almost all cases at least substantially in part
responsible for transporting the waste from its places of origin to its
place of rest, at least temporary rest, in these toxic and hazardous
waste dump sites.
This is a bad bill. It is bad and these bad provisions are there,
largely because it has not had the opportunity to be examined and to be
seen in its true light. So let us see it for what it is and defeat it
because of what it is.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, let me say there is no question about it that we have
not seen this bill on this side of the aisle; and, of course, if we ask
the 435 Members of this body have they seen it, I am certain that about
85 percent to 90 percent of them would say no, we have not seen it. So
I think that to legislate in this fashion is not the way to go.
This is a very serious issue, very serious matter; and when we look
at the people that are against this legislation, I think that is enough
to bring about some kind of reservation and pause on the other side of
the aisle to say maybe we should stop at this point and do it right. I
think when we look at the fact that the Physicians for Social
Responsibility, they are against this. The United States Public
Interest Research Group, they are against it. And, of course, Friends
of the Earth and we can go on and on, Environmental Defense and Clean
Water Act Action, they are all against it in the Sierra Club, and the
list goes on and on and on. I do not think that we should do this this
kind of way.
I mean, why should we do it in a closed-door kind of thing? Why do we
not open up the process and let us deliberate it and see if we cannot
come out with something that is really going to make a difference. I
hope that my colleagues would look at that; and then if not, then I
will ask our friends who are concerned about small businesses to vote
no. This is not it.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for the way you have
conducted this debate, and I appreciate my friends on the other side of
the aisle.
Let me, first of all say, this issue to the Members on the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Commerce
is not a new issue. Lord, we have had hundreds of witnesses, scores of
hearings, discussions about this.
We have had a bipartisan effort on many occasions, many of the
provisions that were in H.R. 2580 and H.R. 1300. Bills that passed both
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee
on Commerce are part and parcel of this small business bill, and I
would not be here today if we had not been frustrated by the fact that
we are not able to get a comprehensive Superfund reform bill passed.
But in the meantime, the small business owners, the people who
suffer, the Barbara Williams in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, sued for
$56,000 for sending chicken bones to the local dump, to the Keystone
Dump. Those are the people that are suffering day after day after day.
There is not an individual that was on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure or the Committee on Commerce that can
stand here and say with any certainty that they did not know what was
in this bill or we have not discussed this bill, time and time again in
this Congress and any other Congress.
I understand when my colleagues do not have an argument on the
substance, my colleagues can talk about the process; but this process
has been a good one. We have been working with the EPA over the last
several weeks in trying to craft a bill; and, in fact, we only got to
one issue that was a critical issue, that was a burden-of-proof issue.
Apparently, my friends on the other side of the aisle cannot quite
understand that we think that the burden of proof ought to be on the
Federal Government, not on some innocent, small business man who is
trying to make a living who is sending chicken bones to the dump.
My friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), talked about
an interesting theory that somehow a small business man would mix
dioxins with the chicken bones to make some kind of salad to send to
the dump. How preposterous is that? In fact, the burden of proof even
under his proposal would be on the small businessman to show that he
did not do that. It gives us an idea about where we have come in this
debate.
This is a bipartisan piece of legislation. We have a number of
Members on here from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Barcia), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer),
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Bishop), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) all responding to small business
concerns in their particular congressional districts that have told
them they are getting tired of getting ripped off by Superfund, they
are getting tired off being ripping off by a program that does not work
and costs them money and threatens to put them out of work. I think
that is a shame.
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to strike a blow for small
business. Let me remind the Members, both here and listening and
watching on television, this is an NFIB key vote, NFIB key vote. That
is, how Members vote on this legislation will be determined by all of
the small businesses in your particular districts. I would ask that
they pay attention to that and understand this is critical to the small
business survival. Let us not make Superfund the enemy of small
business. Let us, Congress, step ahead and save the day on Superfund
reform as it relates to small business.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in serving in Congress is to
promote communities that are more livable. We are not going to achieve
that goal unless we make significant progress toward cleaning up our
Superfund and Brownfield sites. For that reason, I have been a
consistent supporter of Superfund and Brownfield legislation in the
106th Congress.
Of all the Superfund and Brownfield bills, it appeared that H.R. 1300
had the greatest chance for passage in the House. Despite significant
bipartisan support, Senate leadership has made it clear that H.R. 1300
will not move on their side. I am deeply disappointed that instead of
moving H.R. 1300 we are being asked to vote on a controversial bill
which I
[[Page H8132]]
must oppose as will many of my colleagues. Hopefully in the next
Congress we will be able to pass genuine Superfund and Brownfield
legislation.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5175, the
Small Business Liability Relief Act which is important to the welfare
of our nation's small businesses.
H.R. 5175 is bipartisan legislation that will streamline the
Superfund process by removing innocent small businesses from liability.
I have read this bill. I have looked at the language. It is
specifically tailored so that the little guys in our districts will no
longer be punished for legally disposing of their household trash. It
is written so that the government will finally be able to bring justice
to big polluters at Superfund sites trying to shirk their
responsibilities for cleanup by suing your innocent small business
owners. The big polluters will pay and they will have no excuses.
I have in my office a stack of letters from small business owners
throughout my home state of Michigan embroiled in the Superfund
process. For seven years, small business owners in my district have
complained to me about the enormous costs their businesses have
incurred as a result of the flawed Superfund system. For seven years,
we have stood on this floor and in committee rooms trying to pass fair,
bipartisan legislation that would get them out, while still preserving
the original intentions of the program. For seven years, we have
failed. Today, we have a chance to succeed. A chance to finally remove
innocent small businesses from the process so we can punish the big
polluters and finally get these sites cleaned up. This bill is the best
chance we have to act as a bipartisan body to start cleaning up the
Superfund program.
The time has come to do something to help innocent small business
owners in your district and mine, and the vehicle is here: H.R. 5175.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for H.R. 5175, the
Small Business Liability Relief Act.
Like most Members of Congress, I know small businessmen in my
district who have been caught up in superfund litigation. It is
terrible to see the toll it takes on the lives of these individuals.
They don't know if they will lose their businesses, or even their
homes.
I would like to enact legislation that eliminates superfund liability
for everyone. But I recognize that disagreements remain about how to do
that, and how to pay for it.
But if there is one thing all of us should be able to agree on, it is
liability relief for small businesses that sent only 2 drums of waste
or only ordinary garbage to a superfund site.
Congress never intended that these parties be subject to superfund
liability.
Please vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5175.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5175, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________