[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 120 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1646-E1647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY RELIEF ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 26, 2000

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, a number of comments have been made about the 
process of producing H.R. 5175, the Small Business Liability Relief Act 
by opponents of the legislation. I find these comments unfair and 
misleading. The following timeline should help set the record straight. 
Contrary to the impression that some Members imply in their statements, 
Minority staff on the Transportation and Commerce Committees have been 
aware of the basic proposal behind H.R. 5175 for months.
  First, during the 103d, 104th, 105th, and early 106th Congresses, the 
Commerce and Transportation Committees held dozens of hearings with 
hundreds of witnesses outlining the tremendous problems with the badly 
broken Superfund program. Dozens of hearings outline that Superfund is 
an unjust litigation nightmare and has a devastating impact on small 
businesses. The Committees held hearings on a number of Superfund bills 
during this time which have provisions that would provide significant 
relief for small businesses.
  On August 5, 1999, H.R. 1300, a comprehensive bill to reform 
Superfund, passed the Transportation Committee by a vote of 69-2. The 
bill contains a de micromis exemption, an exemption for small 
businesses that provide ordinary garbage, and the de minimis and 
ability to pay settlement policy--generally, all components of the 
later, H.R. 5175. The Clinton-Gore Administration opposes the bill even 
though it now has 149 cosponsors, including 69 Democrats.
  On October 13, 1999, H.R. 2580 passed in Commerce Committee by a vote 
of 30 to 21. The bill includes the same legislative language as H.R. 
1300 providing a de micromis exemption, an exemption for small 
businesses that provide ordinary garbage, and the de minimis and 
ability to pay settlement policy.
  In early November 1999, the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses (NFIB) showed both Majority and Minority staff of the 
Commerce and Transportation Committee a draft small business liability 
relief bill which they claimed was the product of two weeks of 
discussions with the Environmental Protection Agency. The draft clearly 
had been faxed to NFIB staff from the Office of the Administrator at 
EPA. NFIB states that this version and earlier versions of the draft 
bill had been produced at EPA and provided to them through their 
discussions. NFIB further claims that Administrator Browner was both 
fully aware of the draft and found the draft bill to be acceptable to 
EPA.
  In June through July of this year, Majority staff of the Commerce and 
Transportation Committees gave the NFIB-EPA draft fill to legislative 
counsel to put into proper legislative drafting form. This text was 
provided to Minority staff. Majority and Minority staff met to discuss 
this and other Superfund issues.
  On August 18, 2000, EPA sent a letter in response to the request of 
Representative Dingell about the NFIB-EPA discussion draft bill. EPA 
noted one problem concerning the prospective application of the de 
micromis exemption.
  On September 14, 2000, a bipartisan group of cosponsors introduced 
H.R. 5175, the Small Business Liability Relief Act which largely 
reflects the NFIB-EPA 1999 draft bill and addresses the issue raised by 
EPA in August 2000. The most significant change between the bill and 
the NFIB-EPA discussion draft was to address the issue raised by EPA in 
its August 2000 letter.
  On September 19, 2000, NFIB staff met with EPA and Department of 
Justice (DOJ) staff to review H.R. 5175. NFIB states that EPA and DOJ 
staff provided line by line comments on technical concerns within the 
legislation. These comments were relayed to Commerce and Transportation 
Majority staff.
  On September 21, 2000, Majority and Minority staff of the Commerce 
and Transportation Committees and representatives from EPA and the 
Department of Justice met to discuss comments on H.R. 5175.
  On September 24, 2000, a draft with minor revisions was delivered to 
EPA and Minority staff offices to address a number of the concerns 
raised at the meetings of September 19 and 21.
  On September 25, 2000, Majority staff invited EPA and Minority staff 
to meet or to provide any written comments on the revised bill. Neither 
EPA nor Minority staff accepted the invitation.
  On September 26, 2000, H.R. 5175, revised to address certain Minority 
and Administration concerns, was brought up for a vote.
  The small business liability relief issue has had extensive process 
going back years. The basic NFIB-EPA discussion draft bill had been 
provided to Minority staff as far back as November 1999. Mr. Dingell 
received responses from EPA to his questions concerning the draft in 
August 2000. The substantive arguments being made by certain Members 
against the bill--such as those concerning the burden of proof or the 
size definition of small businesses--are arguments over language that 
is in these early drafts. There was more than enough time to provide 
specific written comments to improve the bill.

[[Page E1647]]



                          ____________________