[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19494-19503]
[From the U.S. 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 accepted for transport for 
     disposal or treatment, at the facility, was greater than 110

[[Page 19495]]

     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.--

[[Page 19496]]

       ``(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:
       ``(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

[[Page 19497]]

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 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

[[Page 19498]]

     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 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. 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

[[Page 19499]]

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. 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 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. 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. 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

[[Page 19500]]

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.
  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. 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. 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

[[Page 19501]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 19502]]

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. 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.
  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

[[Page 19503]]

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 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.

                          ____________________