[Pages S5739-S5764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

IRA Rollover to Charity Act

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

By Mr. KYL:
S. 1088. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
certain administrative sites in national forests in the State of
Arizona, to convey certain land to the City of Sedona, Arizona for a
wastewater treatment facility, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.

the arizona national forest improvement act of 1999

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

S. 1088

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Arizona National Forest
Improvement Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 3. SALE OR EXCHANGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SITES.

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

[[Page S5740]]

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

SEC. 4. CONVEYANCE TO CITY OF SEDONA.

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

SEC. 5. DISPOSITION OF FUNDS.

(a) Deposit of Proceeds.--The Secretary shall deposit the
proceeds of a sale or exchange under this Act in the fund
established under Public Law 90-171 (16 U.S.C. 484a)
(commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'').
(b) Use of Proceeds.--Funds deposited under subsection (a)
shall be available to the Secretary, without further Act of
appropriation, for--
(1) the acquisition, construction, or improvement of
administrative facilities for the Coconino National Forest,
Kaibab National Forest, Prescott National Forest, and Tonto
National Forest; or
(2) the acquisition of land and or an interest in land in
the State of Arizona.
______

By Ms. SNOW (for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 1089. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and
2001 for the United States Coast Guard, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

THE COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

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

[[Page S5741]]

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

S. 1089

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 1999''.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

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

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

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

TITLE II--PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

SEC. 201. COAST GUARD BAND DIRECTOR RANK.

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

SEC. 202. COAST GUARD RESERVE SPECIAL PAY.

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

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

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

SEC. 204. COMPENSATORY ABSENCE FOR ISOLATED DUTY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE III--MARINE SAFETY

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

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

SEC. 302. REPORT ON ICEBREAKING SERVICES.

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

[[Page S5742]]

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

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

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

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

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

By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, and Mr.
Lott):
S. 1090. A bill to reauthorize and amend the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act of 1980; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.

the superfund program completion act of 1999

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

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

[[Page S5743]]

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

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

S. 1090

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION

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

TITLE II--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS

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

TITLE III--FAIR SHARE LIABILITY ALLOCATIONS AND PROTECTIONS

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

TITLE IV--FUNDING

Sec. 401. Uses of Hazardous Substance Superfund.

TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION

SEC. 101. BROWNFIELDS.

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

``SEC. 127. BROWNFIELDS.

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

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

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

[[Page S5744]]

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

SEC. 102. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.

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

[[Page S5745]]

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

SEC. 103. PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS AND WINDFALL LIENS.

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

SEC. 104. SAFE HARBOR INNOCENT LANDHOLDERS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S5746]]

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

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

TITLE II--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS

SEC. 201. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

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

``SEC. 128. QUALIFYING STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S5747]]

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

SEC. 202. NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST COMPLETION.

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

SEC. 203. FEDERAL EMERGENCY REMOVAL AUTHORITY.

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

SEC. 204. STATE COST SHARE.

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

TITLE III--FAIR SHARE LIABILITY ALLOCATIONS AND PROTECTIONS

SEC. 301. LIABILITY EXEMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS.

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

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

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

[[Page S5748]]

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

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

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

[[Page S5749]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 302. EXPEDITED SETTLEMENT FOR CERTAIN PARTIES.

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

[[Page S5750]]

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

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

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

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

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

``(ii) Small businesses.--

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

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

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

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

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

``(iii) Municipalities.--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S5751]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE IV--FUNDING

SEC. 401. USES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND.

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

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

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

[[Page S5752]]

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

[[Page S5753]]

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

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

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

[[Page S5754]]

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

[[Page S5755]]

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

[[Page S5756]]

correcting the balance and reflects society's progress from the 80's
and incorporates the methods of the 90's.
______

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Bond):
S. 1091. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
the establishment of a pediatric research initiative; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

the pediatric research initiative act of 1999

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

S. 1091

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Pediatric Research
Initiative Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF A PEDIATRIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE.

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

``SEC. 404F. PEDIATRIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE.

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

[[Page S5757]]

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

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

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

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

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make available
within the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development enhanced support for extramural activities
relating to the training and career development of pediatric
researchers.
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of support provided under
subsection (a) shall be to ensure the future supply of
researchers dedicated to the care and research needs of
children by providing for--
``(1) an increase in the number and size of institutional
training grants to medical school pediatric departments and
children's hospitals; and
``(2) an increase in the number of career development
awards for pediatricians building careers in pediatric basic
and clinical research.
``(c) Authorization.--To carry out this section, there is
authorized to be appropriated, $10,000,000 for fiscal year
2000, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $20,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002.''.
______

BY MR. CRAPO:
S. 1092. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
with respect to regulation of pharmacists, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

PHARMACIST'S PATIENT PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

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

By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 1093. A bill to establish the Galisteo Basin Archaeological
Protection Sites, to provide for the protection of archaeological sites
in the Galisteo Basin of New Mexico and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Galisteo Basin Archaeological Protection Act of 1999

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

[[Page S5758]]

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

S. 1093

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Galisteo Basin
Archaeological Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

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

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

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

Total Acreage.................................................4,022

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

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL SITES.

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

SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.

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

SEC. 6. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

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

SEC. 7. ACQUISITIONS.

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

SEC. 9. WITHDRAWAL.

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

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this act.
______

By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 1095. A bill to amend section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the placed in service date for biomass and coal
facilities; to the Committee on Finance.

the biomass and coal facilities extension act

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

[[Page S5759]]

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

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerrey,
Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Daschle):
S. 1099. A bill to establish a mechanism for using the duties imposed
on products of countries that fail to comply with WTO dispute
resolution decision to provide relief to injured domestic producers; to
the Committee on Finance.

trade injury compensation act

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

[[Page S5760]]

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

S. 1099

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Trade Injury Compensation
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 4. TRADE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND.

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

[[Page S5761]]

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

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON REDUCING SERVICES OR FUNDS.

No payment made to an injured producer or an injured
agricultural commodity producer under this Act shall result
in the reduction or denial of any service or assistance with
respect to which the injured producer or injured agricultural
commodity producer would otherwise be entitled.
______

By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Crap, and Mr. Domenici):
S. 1100. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to
provide that the designation of critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species be required as part of the development of recovery
plans for those species; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.

critical habitat legislation

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

S. 1100

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

SECTION 1. RECOVERY PLANS AND CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS.

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

``recovery plans and critical habitat designations

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

SEC. 2. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS.

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

[[Page S5762]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S5763]]

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

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

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

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

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

By Mr. REED:
S. 1101. A bill to provide for tort liability of firearms dealers who
transfer firearms in violation of Federal firearms law; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

gun dealer responsibility act of 1999

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

[[Page S5764]]

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

S. 1101

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Gun Dealer Responsibility
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 3. CAUSE OF ACTION; FEDERAL JURISDICTION.

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

SEC. 4. LIABILITY.

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

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

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

SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.

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

____________________