[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8552-8558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. GILLMOR. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1831) to provide certain relief for small businesses from 
liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act of 1980.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1831

       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 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY RELIEF.

       (a) 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 new subsections:
       ``(o) De Micromis Exemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     person shall not be liable, with respect to response costs at 
     a facility on the National Priorities List, under this Act if 
     liability is based solely on paragraph (3) or (4) of 
     subsection (a), and the person, except as provided in 
     paragraph (4) of this subsection, can demonstrate that--
       ``(A) the total amount of the material containing hazardous 
     substances 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 less than 110 gallons of 
     liquid materials or less than 200 pounds of solid materials 
     (or such greater or lesser amounts as the Administrator may 
     determine by regulation); and
       ``(B) all or part of the disposal, treatment, or transport 
     concerned occurred before April 1, 2001.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a case 
     in which--
       ``(A) the President determines that--
       ``(i) the materials containing hazardous substances 
     referred to in paragraph (1) have contributed significantly 
     or could contribute significantly, either individually or in 
     the aggregate, to the cost of the response action or natural 
     resource restoration with respect to the facility; or
       ``(ii) the person has failed to comply with an information 
     request or administrative subpoena issued by the President 
     under this Act or has impeded or is impeding, through action 
     or inaction, the performance of a response action or natural 
     resource restoration with respect to the facility; or
       ``(B) a person has been convicted of a criminal violation 
     for the conduct to which the exemption would apply, and that 
     conviction has not been vitiated on appeal or otherwise.
       ``(3) No judicial review.--A determination by the President 
     under paragraph (2)(A) shall not be subject to judicial 
     review.
       ``(4) Nongovernmental third-party contribution actions.--In 
     the case of a contribution action, with respect to response 
     costs at a facility on the National Priorities List, brought 
     by a party, other than a Federal, State, or local government, 
     under this Act, the burden of proof shall be on the party 
     bringing the action to demonstrate that the conditions 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) and (B) of this subsection are 
     not met.
       ``(p) Municipal Solid Waste Exemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection, a person shall not be liable, with respect 
     to response costs at a facility on the National Priorities 
     List, under paragraph (3) of subsection (a) for municipal 
     solid waste disposed of at a facility if the person, except 
     as provided in paragraph (5) of this subsection, can 
     demonstrate that the person is--
       ``(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, during its 3 taxable years 
     preceding the date of transmittal of written notification 
     from the President of its potential liability under this 
     section, employed on average not more than 100 full-time 
     individuals, or the equivalent thereof, and that is a small 
     business concern (within the meaning of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.)) from which was generated all of 
     the municipal solid waste attributable to the entity 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 of transmittal of 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.

     For purposes of this subsection, 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.).
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a case 
     in which the President determines that--
       ``(A) the municipal solid waste referred to in paragraph 
     (1) has contributed significantly or could contribute 
     significantly, either individually or in the aggregate, to 
     the cost of the response action or natural resource 
     restoration with respect to the facility;
       ``(B) the person has failed to comply with an information 
     request or administrative subpoena issued by the President 
     under this Act; or
       ``(C) the person has impeded or is impeding, through action 
     or inaction, the performance of a response action or natural 
     resource restoration with respect to the facility.
       ``(3) No judicial review.--A determination by the President 
     under paragraph (2) shall not be subject to judicial review.
       ``(4) 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, industrial, or 
     institutional entity, to the extent that the waste material--

       ``(I) is essentially the same as waste normally generated 
     by a household;
       ``(II) is collected and disposed of with other municipal 
     solid waste as part of normal municipal solid waste 
     collection services; and
       ``(III) contains a relative quantity of hazardous 
     substances no greater than the relative quantity of hazardous 
     substances contained in waste material generated by a typical 
     single-family household.

       ``(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

[[Page 8553]]

     control operations) that is not essentially the same as waste 
     normally generated by households.
       ``(5) Burden of proof.--In the case of an action, with 
     respect to response costs at a facility on the National 
     Priorities List, brought under section 107 or 113 by--
       ``(A) a party, other than a Federal, State, or local 
     government, with respect to municipal solid waste disposed of 
     on or after April 1, 2001; or
       ``(B) any party with respect to municipal solid waste 
     disposed of before April 1, 2001, the burden of proof shall 
     be on the party bringing the action to demonstrate that the 
     conditions described in paragraphs (1) and (4) for exemption 
     for entities and organizations described in paragraph (1)(B) 
     and (C) are not met.
       ``(6) Certain actions not permitted.--No contribution 
     action may be brought by a party, other than a Federal, 
     State, or local government, under this Act with respect to 
     circumstances described in paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(7) Costs and fees.--A nongovernmental entity that 
     commences, after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, a contribution action under this Act 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.--Section 122(g) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9622(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(7) Reduction in settlement amount based on limited 
     ability to pay.--
       ``(A) In general.--The condition for settlement under this 
     paragraph is that the potentially responsible party is a 
     person who demonstrates to the President an inability or a 
     limited ability to pay response costs.
       ``(B) Considerations.--In determining whether or not a 
     demonstration is made under subparagraph (A) by a person, the 
     President shall take into consideration the ability of the 
     person to pay response costs and still maintain its basic 
     business operations, including consideration of the overall 
     financial condition of the person and demonstrable 
     constraints on the ability of the person to raise revenues.
       ``(C) Information.--A person requesting settlement under 
     this paragraph shall promptly provide the President with all 
     relevant information needed to determine the ability of the 
     person to pay response costs.
       ``(D) Alternative payment methods.--If the President 
     determines that a person 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.
       ``(8) Additional conditions for expedited settlements.--
       ``(A) Waiver of claims.--The President shall require, as a 
     condition for settlement under this subsection, that a 
     potentially responsible party waive all of the claims 
     (including a claim for contribution under this Act) 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.
       ``(B) Failure to comply.--The President may decline to 
     offer a settlement to a potentially responsible party under 
     this subsection 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, through action or inaction, the 
     performance of a response action with respect to the 
     facility.
       ``(C) Responsibility to provide information and access.--A 
     potentially responsible party that enters into a settlement 
     under this subsection 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).
       ``(9) Basis of determination.--If the President determines 
     that a potentially responsible party is not eligible for 
     settlement under this subsection, the President shall provide 
     the reasons for the determination in writing to the 
     potentially responsible party that requested a settlement 
     under this subsection.
       ``(10) Notification.--As soon as practicable after receipt 
     of sufficient information to make a determination, the 
     President shall notify any person that the President 
     determines is eligible under paragraph (1) of the person's 
     eligibility for an expedited settlement.
       ``(11) No judicial review.--A determination by the 
     President under paragraph (7), (8), (9), or (10) shall not be 
     subject to judicial review.
       ``(12) 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 apply to or in 
     any way affect any settlement lodged in, or judgment issued 
     by, a United States District Court, or any administrative 
     settlement or order entered into or issued by the United 
     States or any State, before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GILLMOR. Madam 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. GILLMOR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) be permitted to control 10 
minutes of the time on this side of the aisle.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today my colleagues and I bring environmental legislation before this 
House that we believe will make a difference in the lives of everyday 
Americans. This bill, the Small Business Liability Protection Act, will 
help to end the long nightmares suffered by so many small businesses 
which become liable for substantial amounts of money only for throwing 
regular, ordinary household waste in the local dump.
  As a member of the House's Subcommittee on Hazardous Materials for 
the past several Congresses, I have heard repeated stories of 
businessowners who found themselves involved in serious Superfund 
liability litigation for either throwing out just regular trash, or 
having legally disposed of some material that years later was found to 
be improperly disposed of. The bill before us, H.R. 1831, will take a 
major step toward trying to bring some sanity and to bring some 
fairness to Superfund liability.
  To illustrate my point, Madam Speaker, I would like to provide a few 
examples of how the current system produces unfair results.
  Greg Shierling took over a McDonalds business from his parents in 
1996. In 1999, he was informed that he was financially responsible to 
the tune of $65,000 for cleanup of a landfill that his parents had 
legally trucked trash to 30 years ago when Greg was still in grade 
school.
  Mike Nobis owns a printing shop. In February of 1999, he was informed 
that six large local companies were coming after him and 147 other 
small businesses for $3.1 million in cleanup costs because he had 
legally sent paper and ordinary trash to the local landfill.
  Pat McClean was forced to pay $21,900. His problem was that his 
business, a restaurant, sent chicken bones, potato peelings, and soiled 
napkins to a local dump.
  Mr. McClean's story is practically identical to Barbara Williams of 
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Her former restaurant, the Sunny Ray, became 
enmeshed in the financial quagmire of Superfund liability because she 
too threw chicken bones and other ordinary trash in the local dump.
  Each of these stories is somewhat different, but in many ways are the 
same. A person legally disposed of ordinary trash. They were then sued 
by someone else, trying to get money for cleanup, and in order to pay 
the bill, pay the debt, the small business laid off trusted employees, 
had to sue friends in the community, built substantial legal bills, and 
suffered undue personal anguish. That outcome simply is not right.
  To address these concerns, our bill provides relief to small 
business, those of 100 employees or less; it provides liability 
protection to small businesses that disposed of very small amounts of 
ordinary garbage, and it shelters small businesses from serious 
financial hardship by offering the businesses affected expedited 
settlements.

[[Page 8554]]



                              {time}  1515

  It does not save any business from Superfund liability if their waste 
stream caused serious environmental harm. The bill provides an 
appropriate helping hand while keeping the onus on all businesses to be 
responsible stewards of our environment.
  This legislation is not the type of comprehensive Superfund 
legislation that many have supported over the years, including myself. 
There have been several unrealized attempts over the years to reach 
that Holy Grail. It has resulted not in a better Superfund program, but 
in more lawsuits, more stigmas, and less clean-up.
  Rather, this bill is an acknowledgment that something must be done 
and that the best way to provide commonsense liability relief to those 
who need it is to find those areas of agreement within the Superfund 
universe and move them forward.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working diligently on 
brownfields legislation once this bill passes.
  I want to make a few comments about some other Members who have 
worked on this bill. I want to thank the vice-chairman of our 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who first 
brought this matter before Congress last year.
  I want to express appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) 
for his help in laying the groundwork for today.
  I also want to thank the ranking members of both our subcommittee and 
full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). Their work on this issue has 
been instrumental in bringing this bill before us.
  Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), 
the chairman, and the committee staff for their hard work in support of 
this legislative effort.
  I urge all Members to vote for the passage of H.R. 1831.
         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 2001.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


           h.r. 1831--small business liability protection act

       The Administration strongly supports enactment of H.R. 
     1831. The bill will promote the cleanup of Superfund sites 
     and reduce needless lawsuits by drawing a bright line between 
     large contributors of toxic waste and small businesses who 
     disposed of only small amounts of waste or ordinary trash. 
     The Administration commends the bipartisan sponsors of H.R. 
     1831 for developing legislation that will reduce litigation 
     and thereby increase the time and resources that can be spent 
     on cleaning the environment. The Administration will continue 
     to work in the legislative process to address concerns with 
     the provisions that cut off citizens' access to courts and 
     withhold the benefits of the bill for small businesses unless 
     they comply with all information requests imposed by EPA, 
     whether the law requires the furnishing of that information 
     or not.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch), of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and I 
ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to allocate time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1831, the Small 
Business Liability Protection Act.
  For over 8 years, there has been a general consensus among the 
Members of this House that too many small businesses, homeowners, and 
small charitable organizations were being sued by large businesses for 
Superfund clean-up costs when these parties did nothing more than put 
out their normal trash.
  Unfortunately, the House has not been able to pass legislation to 
stop these abuses because liability protection was always a component 
of a larger and more controversial bill.
  Today, we are taking a critical step to ending this abuse, which has 
been called a nightmare for small businesses, their families, friends, 
and neighbors. This bill is brief, only 13 pages; but its impact will 
be widespread among the small business community. Businesses with not 
more than 100 employees will now be able to feel secure that they will 
not be sued by larger businesses when all they did was send out 
ordinary trash to a Superfund site.
  In my district in southwestern and southern Illinois, for example, 
virtually all businesses will now be protected from such lawsuits. In 
addition to protecting those who sent the trash, the bill also exempts 
any party that sent very small amounts of waste to a Superfund site.
  At too many sites across the country, polluters at Superfund sites 
have engaged in abusive practices of literally suing every business in 
the phone book as a way of spreading out their cost for Superfund 
clean-up. The theory was that everyone's trash must contain some 
hazardous substances. This bill will stop that abuse.
  This bill demonstrates that by working in a bipartisan manner, we can 
in fact get results that help real people, real benefits to real 
people. It is no secret that this bill is of major interest to the 
National Federation of Independent Business. That organization should 
be congratulated for reaching out in a bipartisan manner and working 
with Democrats and Republicans to develop this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1831, the Small 
Business Liability Protection Act.
  Madam Speaker, virtually every Member of Congress has a story to tell 
about the abuses of the Superfund program in his or her district. We 
have just heard a number of examples of that by my friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor). The worst abuses often involve using 
this statute to threaten small parties and small businesses with 
liability for millions of dollars to pay for the clean-up of a 
Superfund site, even if the contamination that requires cleaning up has 
nothing to do with their waste.
  When Congress passed the Superfund statute in 1980, Congress was not 
aiming at small businesses and ordinary garbage. However, at the urging 
of overzealous attorneys representing both EPA and third-party 
plaintiffs, courts have expanded Superfund liabilities so far that 
someone can be held liable for cleaning up a site even if they sent 
only a quart of oil, ordinary household garbage, or even a single 
copper penny.
  This theory of joint and several liability, holding someone liable 
for all of the costs regardless of their degree of involvement at a 
site, has created unfairness, to say the least, for all parties caught 
up in Superfund liability.
  But the burden of this liability falls most heavily on small 
businesses, which often cannot even afford to hire a lawyer. In fact, 
Madam Speaker, I have said before that we should pin a medal on anyone 
who survives in small business today, and certainly Superfund problems 
of small businesses are a prime example.
  While we have not yet addressed all of the problems with the 
Superfund statute, I am proud to say that today we can make this flawed 
program a little bit fairer. Today we can pass legislation to protect 
small businesses from at least some Superfund liability. H.R. 1831 
accomplishes this goal by providing an exemption from liability for 
people or companies who send only a small amount of waste to a 
Superfund site and households, small businesses, and now nonprofit 
organizations that send only ordinary trash to a Superfund site.
  Under the bill, these parties will not have to hire a lawyer to gain 
the protection of these exemptions. In most cases, H.R. 1831 places the 
burden on the plaintiff to prove that the small party is not exempt.
  Finally, we realized that not all small businesses will be eligible 
for these exemptions. For these small businesses, H.R. 1831 provides an 
expedited settlement based on a limited ability to pay so that they are 
not trapped in Superfund litigation for years and

[[Page 8555]]

years, as we have seen some small businesses in the past years since we 
have passed the original Superfund legislation.
  This bill does not accomplish everything we want to accomplish on 
Superfund reform, but it is certainly a good first step in the right 
direction.
  I want to say that, first of all, I would like to commend my good 
friend, one of the great leaders of this Congress, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert), of the Committee on Science and a Member who 
chaired the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the 
Committee on Transportation in the past 6 years in the Congress, and 
held numerous hearings on this legislation and other Superfund-type 
issues.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) for the 
work that he has done, because he has worked on this for several years.
  I want to thank another close friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Costello), for his support, as he has expressed today; and the 
ranking member, his ranking member of our full committee, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and certainly, last but not least, the 
chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), 
all of whom have expressed strong support for this very fine 
legislation to provide at least some assistance to the small businesses 
of this Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this very moderate and 
reasonable legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, over the past 7 years, Members on the Democratic side 
of the aisle have supported bills to deal with the three issues covered 
by the bipartisan compromise that the House considers today.
  I support the fair, balanced compromise contained in this bill. It 
deals with the liability of parties who sent very small amounts of 
hazardous substance to a site, and the liability of homeowners and 
small businesses that has arisen from the generation of municipal solid 
waste, basic household trash.
  I congratulate all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for 
their dedication in resolving these difficult issues. Ideology has been 
put aside to produce a common-sense bill that can and should become a 
public law.
  This legislation codifies the Environmental Protection Agency's 
current ability-to-pay policy, and contains two tailored exemptions 
from liability at final Superfund national priority list sites.
  The first exemption is available for any person who sent very small 
amounts of waste to a Superfund NPL site. The second exemption provides 
liability protection for homeowners and small businesses who have had 
their trash picked up by their city trash collector and then disposed 
of at a local landfill which has been listed as a Superfund NPL site.
  Under the bill, the costs associated with the two exemptions and the 
ability-to-pay provision are not transferred to the Superfund trust 
fund or the Federal program. This paragraph reflects the EPA policy 
that de micromis parties who have contributed only a minuscule amount 
of waste to the site should not participate in the financing of the 
clean-up.
  However, to deal with the equities of the situation where the waste 
material could contribute significantly to the cost of the clean-up, 
the bill gives the President the right, which cannot be challenged in 
court, to deny the exemption.
  During discussions of this bill, representatives of small business 
emphasized that their problem is not with the government but with 
large, responsible parties who go after or threaten small businesses or 
homeowners as part of a scorched-earth litigation strategy.
  For example, we have heard of situations where large responsible 
parties threaten to sue small businesses and homeowners listed in the 
local phone book because their trash was picked up by the municipality 
and deposited in the local landfill. To address these problems, this 
legislation will provide that no homeowner can be sued for merely 
putting household trash out on the curb which was picked up by the 
municipality.
  Small businesses and those who sent extremely small amounts of waste 
material to the Superfund site obtained additional protection by having 
the burden of proof shifted in their favor in these third-party 
actions, as well as providing them the ability to collect reasonable 
attorneys' fees.
  This bill represents a targeted and workable reform that is warranted 
and long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank and appreciate the great 
work of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Gillmor), in bringing this legislation to the floor today, and to 
recognize that this is the first, I think, significant reform in 
environmental laws in this country in 5 years; and that for this to 
happen, it required an extraordinary amount of bipartisan cooperation 
and support.
  I particularly want to single out the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who 
has done an extraordinary job of reaching across the aisle to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and bringing this bill forward.
  I owe a great deal of gratitude to my own ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is working closely with me 
on the Committee of Energy and Commerce to bring a bipartisan spirit to 
much of our work. Again, this bill is the best symbol of that effort to 
date. I want to thank him for that.
  I of course would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who have put in so many hours and years.
  There are numerous other people in this room who deserve credit.
  It is important to note that this is indeed a bipartisan effort to 
find an answer to a very troubling problem in Superfund law, that is, 
how to protect the innocent folks who get caught up into this amazing 
and deep liability and litigation scheme that was designed to make sure 
that real polluters were punished by making them responsible for 
cleaning up Superfund sites in this country.
  This particular area of small business relief I think was really 
brought to our attention for all Americans by Barbara Williams, the 
former owner of SunnyRay Restaurant in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, who 
told us here in Congress about her own nightmare experience of being 
drawn into Superfund liability and transaction costs and litigation 
expenses. And for what reason? That her restaurant had put some chicken 
bones into her waste, and this had eventually gone to a site. All of a 
sudden she found herself wrapped up in the system in a way that the law 
never was intended to give Americans those kinds of problems.
  The passage of this bill, which is hugely endorsed by NFIB and by the 
administration, is not the end; but it is certainly the beginning of 
Superfund reform. I commend the authors and encourage passage of the 
bill.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science and a 
gentleman who has been a real leader on this particular legislation.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for the outstanding leadership he has 
provided, and so many others, in support of this legislation.

[[Page 8556]]

  I, too, support the legislation. While the bill provides some long-
needed relief for small businesses and communities caught up in the 
Superfund liability net, it also signals a missed opportunity to enact 
more comprehensive reform.
  For those of us familiar with the world of Superfund, H.R. 1831 
specifically provides a de micromis exemption for those who are 
contributors of truly tiny amounts of waste.

                              {time}  1530

  It also exempts those who contributed nonhazardous garbage, translate 
that, municipal solid waste. Finally, it encourages faster and fairer 
settlements through ``ability to pay'' procedures.
  Make no mistake, though, this is not comprehensive reform. I continue 
to believe that the best approach is a more comprehensive one, an 
approach that addresses broader inequities in the liability scheme; 
that accelerates brownfields revisitization; that puts an end to joint 
and several liability; that embraces the concept of fair-share 
allocation, rejecting the just plain goofy concept of deep pockets.
  If you are more successful, you have to pay more, regardless of what 
you contributed to the problem; that just does not make sense. We have 
to come to grips with the reality of the need to reauthorize Superfund 
taxes to ensure the principal of the fund, as well as the polluter pays 
principal.
  Do not get nervous. We are talking about \12/100\ of a percent on 
profits in excess of $2 million when figured under the alternative 
minimum tax scheme. That sounds like so much mumbo jumbo.
  But for a short period of time if we do not reauthorize the lapsed 
corporate environmental income tax, which I am convinced all America 
would embrace, then we do not have a Superfund fund to pay the bills.
  We have to do it. That was the basis of the bill H.R. 1300 that moved 
through the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on a 69 to 2 
vote in the last Congress. It continues to be the right approach, and 
that is why I have reintroduced it as H.R. 324 this year.
  Madam Speaker, however, I am a realist. Given the complications of 
moving a more comprehensive bill, I support moving forward today with 
this targeted compromise, and I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Gillmor) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for 
bringing it forward as long as we continue to work on other important 
components of the Superfund issue.
  Let me point out, we know the impediment to reauthorizing the lapsed 
corporate environmental income tax, the \12/100\ of a percent tax, it 
is the oil industry. Last time I checked, they were doing pretty well. 
One company, in the first quarter of this year, made $5 billion in 
profits; and you know what this \12/100\ of a percent tax would cost 
the entire industry, not the one company, but the entire industry, $33 
million.
  The oil industry should be embarrassed, some members of the industry, 
some are responsible, I am not painting with a broad brush, to tell us 
they are opposed to reauthorizing it. That just does not make sense.
  We have to deal with brownfields legislation. That is something else 
that is very important. Over 450,000 brownfields from coast to coast, 
mainly in our urban centers, laying idle because people are afraid to 
touch them because of some future liability. Those are where the jobs 
are needed in our center cities.
  If you want to deal with urban sprawl, deal with it in a responsible 
way, pass brownfields legislation. So I hope this is only chapter 1 in 
a rather dramatic story that this Congress is writing dealing with 
Superfund in a comprehensive, sweeping way.
  Madam Speaker, this is good public policy for America. This is a 
start. Madam Speaker, I am proud to identify with chapter 1, but I want 
to see more chapters.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Madam Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch) for taking the time and being here to lead the 
bill on the Democratic side.
  As I did last week in committee, I wanted to take a moment to 
recognize the significance of the consensus legislation that we will be 
considering in the House today. H.R. 1831, the Small Business Liability 
Protection Act, is a result of the hard work of Democrats and 
Republicans alike working towards a common goal. I believe our 
bipartisan efforts have produced an effective piece of legislation.
  Madam Speaker, this bill will provide relief from private third-party 
litigation against homeowners and small businesses who had their trash 
taken to the local landfill and anyone who generates a minuscule amount 
of waste material containing hazardous substances. It is the EPA policy 
not to pursue or sue persons who meet these criteria.
  Unfortunately, in many places, like Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and 
Quincy, Illinois, large responsible parties have threatened or sued 
small businesses with litigation. This legislation provides real 
protections for small businesses, homeowners, and contributors of very 
small amounts of waste material.
  Most important is the fact that this legislation provides necessary 
protection while, at the same time, preserving the government's burden 
of proof, upholding important environmental provisions, and insuring 
that cleanup funds are not affected because there are no cost shifts to 
the Superfund trust fund or the Federal program.
  Again, Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out my pleasure with this 
consensus legislation. I want to thank the staff of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce who helped us on both sides of the aisle put this 
together, and I look forward to a joint effort to help pass this bill 
obviously today in the House and also in the Senate soon and have it 
enacted into law.
  Madam Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Deutsch), my colleague, for being here to be in charge of the bill on 
the Democratic side.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Gillmor), chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials; the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce; and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the 
ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous 
Materials, for their help in this legislation.
  From my perspective, this legislation is for Quincy, Illinois.
  On February 10, 1999, letters were sent from the EPA with a suspense 
date of March 15, 1999 to settle or get sued. It was as simple as that. 
We were able to go up to Quincy right after that letter hit the street 
on a Saturday morning to meet with over 100 small businesses.
  We were able to get the EPA to delay the suspense date until March 
24, and they actually sent out a legal person to basically make the 
case that they needed to settle or sue.
  They were constrained by current law, so that is why I got involved 
with this battle that has been going on for many, many years to draft 
legislation to change the law.
  The EPA gave a lot of the small businesses in Quincy, Illinois until 
March 24 to settle. There was 165 small businesses, and the settlement 
amount was over $3.1 million. I personally was in contact with over 100 
constituents. Some of these are still in litigation today.
  The Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert),

[[Page 8557]]

came to visit Quincy, along with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). In those meetings, legislation was dropped in 
June of 1999, which was brought to the floor in the fall of 2000 on the 
suspension calendar, just like today. Unfortunately, although it had 
the majority of votes, it did not have the two-thirds required for 
passage.
  We went back at it again in the new 107th Congress with new chairmen 
and a new attitude. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Gillmor), chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous 
Materials; the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; 
and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member on 
the Subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous Materials, who pushed 
this through.
  We have a book that many of us read when we go to schools, especially 
grade schools, the House Mouse book in which there is a big debate on 
legislation about American cheese or Swiss cheese. Finally, both bodies 
of the legislative branch get together, and they decide American 
cheese, and the bill gets signed into law. And the little class that 
sent the letter is watching on TV as the President signs the bill. The 
story ends with the teacher saying we live in a wonderful, wonderful 
land.
  Our ability to breach compromise and move legislation to get small 
businesses out of this trap of this Superfund liability is truly a 
remarkable compromise. I want to thank all of those who were involved. 
Yes, we do live in a wonderful, wonderful land.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I will simply say that this legislation is designed to 
remove some unintended consequences from this original Superfund 
legislation. In effect, it would have been done many years ago if we 
had been able to foresee what would happen in regard to some of these 
Superfund cleanup projects.
  So this is very good environmental legislation. It is very good small 
business legislation, very fair and reasonable and moderate, and is 
something that I think can be proudly supported by Members on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, for twenty years, small business owners 
have lived in fear of the onerous Superfund law. With the passage of 
H.R. 1831, the Small Business Liability Protection Act, the House of 
Representatives is saying, ``Enough!''
  As you may know, Superfund reform consumed a good portion of my 
legislative career during the last half decade. That's how I came to 
meet Barbara Williams, the restaurant owner in Gettysburg who found 
herself ensnared in Superfund liability even though she did little more 
than dump a few chicken bones and leftover mashed potatoes in the local 
landfill.
  Small business owners across the country have suffered through the 
same expensive experience. Superfund was never supposed to drive these 
hard-working business people into bankruptcy. The National Federation 
of Independent Business has been out in front, trying to correct this 
injustice. And over the years, I came to feel that many Members also 
regarded this as unfair.
  Barbara Williams and the NFIB started a crusade that is culminating 
in this bill. The legislative process can move slowly . . . and while 
it's moving, some us move along. But I have a sense of satisfaction 
that we are doing the right thing for innocent small businesses. I'd 
like to thank all of the people who worked with me on Superfund reform, 
and congratulate all those involved in bringing H.R. 1831 to the floor, 
including my colleague and good friend from Ohio, Representative Paul 
Gillmor.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Madam Speaker, for years now, Congress has 
tried to bring relief to small business owners with Superfund concerns. 
I applaud bipartisan effort on this legislation to alleviate the 
unnecessary financial burdens on small business owners who are unjustly 
brought into the legal fray for sites where they did not contribute to 
the contamination. The Superfund program and the redevelopment of 
Brownfield sites are essential to the economic prosperity of our 
communities. H.R. 1831, the legislation before us today, is a balanced 
and fair approach because while it provides protections to relieve 
small business that did not contribute to the contamination from 
unnecessary and unwarranted litigation, it holds the appropriate 
contaminators accountable.
  Much more work needs to be done to reform the Superfund program, 
including helping others seeking legitimate liability relief and 
holding those who did the actual contamination accountable, but this 
bill, seven years in the making, provides the long awaited relief that 
small businesses throughout our nation need. We must keep making 
progress on broader Superfund legislation
  Our actions at the Federal level should complement the successes of 
the Brownfields Program. Redevelopment of Brownfield sites helps all 
our communities and ultimately the small business owner. In 1998 the 
Kansas City Region was one of only 16 designated as a ``Showcase 
Community'' by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This past 
year the program was awarded the EPA Region 7's Phoenix Award, a 
national honor recognizing excellence in Brownfield redevelopment work. 
These honors translate to true results.
  Results in my district include jump starting the Lewis and Clark 
Redevelopment Area located in the historic West Bottoms known for years 
in Kansas City's growth as the ``stock yards.'' This area was ravaged 
by a devastating fire in 1998, leaving business and abandoned buildings 
gutted. Normally, a rebuilding process would begin except when there is 
a contamination complicating the process. In this instance, there were 
mitigating factors associated with contamination (mainly asbestos) and 
the federal Brownfields program was used to partner with the city and 
economic development to eliminate the contamination. With the 
involvement of the Brownfields program, a blighted eyesore on the 
threshold of downtown Kansas City has been removed and rejuvenated to 
restore and create jobs and economic development. A success story 
through the partnership of Brownfields and Superfund.
  In all parts of my district there are similar success stories whether 
it is the Historic 18th and Vine Jazz Entertainment District, to the 
Beacon Hill Neighborhood housing redevelopment, and the Blue River 
Industrial Corridor. Brownfields afford the opportunity to build upon 
the synergies of public and private partnerships, resulting in business 
and job growth, improvement of quality of life, and reinvestment in 
what would otherwise continue to be a depressed area.
  Ultimately, this translates into a thriving small business community. 
This is what the Superfund and Brownfields redevelopment programs were 
intended to create--not additional and unwarranted litigation.
  Madam Speaker, I support this legislation and urge its adoption, 
along with further Superfund reform efforts. 20
  Mr. DOYLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1831, The Small Business Liability Protection Act. I was pleased to 
join fellow members of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the 
Environment and Hazardous Materials in becoming an original cosponsor 
of this bill and I am pleased to see it moving forward towards 
implementation.
  We all agree that small businesses are in great need of appropriate 
relief from unintended consequences posed by Superfund's liability 
structure. I realize that the parameters of what constitutes 
appropriate relief was a contentious matter during debate on related 
legislation considered in the previous session of Congress. I am 
pleased that continued discussions on the matter have produced 
consensus on how best to provide this relief such that we are now 
poised to advance a legislative remedy that is fair, balanced, and is 
supported by a diverse group of interested parties. Superfund reform 
has been a pressing need not only in Pennsylvania, but also throughout 
the country. Clearly, there is a need for more comprehensive Superfund 
reform. While this bill is limited in its scope, it will provide a 
much-needed clarification regarding small business liability that for 
too long has been misconstrued by the courts to the detriment of many 
small business owners.
  It is my hope that the tone set by today's debate on H.R. 1831 will 
carry the bill to swift enactment, as well as foster an atmosphere in 
the House in which other significant achievements such as advancing 
brownfields legislation can be achieved.
  In closing, I want to express my appreciation to both Subcommittee 
Chairman Gillmor and Ranking Member Pallone for exhibiting exemplary 
leadership and bipartisanship on this most critical issue.
  Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 1831, the

[[Page 8558]]

Small Business Liability Protection Act. As an original co-sponsor of 
this bill, I believe it is vital that we pass this legislation and help 
end the fear of so many small businessmen and women that they will be 
held liable for unlimited toxic cleanup costs that are not their fault. 
Under current law, any contribution of hazardous material to a 
Superfund site makes any contributor wholly liable for the costs of 
cleanup. H.R. 1831 is an important and necessary improvement to 
Superfund, because it will exempt small businesses and non-profits that 
only contributed to Superfund sites a nominal amount of hazardous 
material. It will also exempt those who only contributed regular 
household waste to these sites. This reform will provide certainty and 
protection for small business that seek to start new enterprises and 
will provide incentives for businesses to take responsibility for 
mildly contaminated areas at the lowest possible cleanup cost.
  While I strongly support H.R. 1831, I believe that we need to move 
quickly to pass even more substantive and comprehensive Superfund 
reform. In my own district, the Bunker Hill Superfund site in Kellogg, 
Idaho is a prime example of how hazardous waste cleanup can transform 
into open-ended federal government control of a community and its 
economy. I hope that the members who vote for H.R. 1831 will work with 
me to make additional needed Superfund reforms. Final approval for 
listing a Superfund site should be given to the governor of the state 
concerned after local input. States should have the opportunity to draw 
up their own cleanup plans before the federal government becomes 
involved.
  I wish to thank Chairman Young and Chairman Tauzin for bringing this 
important legislation to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to 
protect small business from government run amok and vote for H.R. 1831.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support for H.R. 
1831, The Small Business Liability Protection 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.
  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.
  To those of you who are concerned about ``Cherry-Picking'' Superfund 
reforms--let me assure you I am very interested in addressing 
additional Superfund legislation in this Congress.
  We still need to address natural resource damages, liability relief 
for innocent parties, finality for state cleanup programs and 
Brownfields generally, and Superfund's joint and several liability 
scheme.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1831.
  Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, as the recent past ranking member of the 
subcommittee with jurisdiction over superfund, I am proud to be an 
original co-sponsor of the small business liability protection act. 
This bill that sits before us today includes a significant achievement 
that has eluded us in the past, small business relief. I congratulate 
the bipartisan coalition that has worked together to achieve this 
worthy end. Small business which disposed of basically household trash 
or very small quantities of waste materials containing hazardous 
substances should not be a target of environmental cleanup efforts if 
they are not responsible for the environmental damage. Instead we 
should continue to pursue the polluter pays principle. The limits 
established by this legislation strike the right balance between the 
protection of small business and the continued protection of the 
environment. This will ensure that small business does not get 
inappropriately caught in a web of litigation.
  We have worked long and hard to bring relief to small business 
owners. I am pleased that we have come to a bipartisan conclusion. I 
believe that bipartisan congratulations should be offered to the 
leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee as well as the 
Environmental and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1831.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Madam 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.

                          ____________________