Volume 143, No. 49 covering the 1st Session of the 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1997” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H1750-H1753 on April 23, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1997
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 688) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require at least 85 percent of funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund to be distributed to States for cooperative agreements for undertaking corrective action and for enforcement of subtitle I of such act, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 688
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 ``Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act of 1997''.
TITLE I--DISTRIBUTIONS FROM LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND
SEC. 101. LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.
(a) Trust Fund Distribution.--Section 9004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991c) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Trust Fund Distribution to States.--
``(1) In General.--(A) The Administrator shall distribute to States at least 85 percent of the funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund (in this subsection referred to as the `Trust Fund') each fiscal year for the reasonable costs under cooperative agreements entered into with the Administrator for the following:
``(i) States' actions under section 9003(h)(7)(A).
``(ii) Necessary administrative expenses directly related to corrective action and compensation programs under subsection (c)(1).
``(iii) Enforcement of a State or local program approved under this section or enforcement of this subtitle or similar State or local provisions by a State or local government.
``(iv) State and local corrective actions pursuant to regulations promulgated under section 9003(c)(4).
``(v) Corrective action and compensation programs under subsection (c)(1) for releases from underground storage tanks regulated under this subtitle in any instance, as determined by the State, in which the financial resources of an owner or operator, excluding resources provided by programs under subsection (c)(1), are not adequate to pay for the cost of a corrective action without significantly impairing the ability of the owner or operator to continue in business.
``(B) Funds provided by the Administrator under subparagraph (A) may not be used by States for purposes of providing financial assistance to an owner or operator in meeting the requirements respecting underground storage tanks contained in section 280.21 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection) or similar requirements in State programs approved under this section or similar State or local provisions.
``(2) Allocation.--
``(A) Process.--In the case of a State that the Administrator has entered into a cooperative agreement with under section 9003(h)(7)(A), the Administrator shall distribute funds from the Trust Fund to the State using the allocation process developed by the Administrator for such cooperative agreements.
``(B) Revisions to process.--The Administrator may revise such allocation process only after--
``(i) consulting with State agencies responsible for overseeing corrective action for releases from underground storage tanks and with representatives of owners and operators; and
``(ii) taking into consideration, at a minimum, the total revenue received from each State into the Trust Fund, the number of confirmed releases from leaking underground storage tanks in each State, the number of notified petroleum storage tanks in each State, and the percent of the population of each State using groundwater for any beneficial purpose.
``(3) Recipients.--Distributions from the Trust Fund under this subsection shall be made directly to the State agency entering into a cooperative agreement or enforcing the State program.
``(4) Cost recovery prohibition.--Funds provided to States from the Trust Fund to owners or operators for programs under subsection (c)(1) for releases from underground storage tanks are not subject to cost recovery by the Administrator under section 9003(h)(6).''.
(b) Technical Amendments.--Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) is amended as follows:
(1) Section 9001(3)(A) (42 U.S.C. 6991(3)(A)) is amended by striking out ``sustances'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``substances''.
(2) Section 9003(f)(1) (42 U.S.C. 6991b(f)(1)) is amended by striking out ``subsection (c) and (d)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsections (c) and (d)''.
(3) Section 9004(a) (42 U.S.C. 6991c(a)) is amended by striking out ``in 9001(2)(A)'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``in section 9001(2)(A)''.
(4) Section 9005 (42 U.S.C. 6991d) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking out ``study taking'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``study, taking'';
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking out ``relevent'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``relevant''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(4), by striking out ``Evironmental'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Environmental''.
TITLE II--EXTENSION OF TRUST FUND PURPOSES
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF TRUST FUND PURPOSES.
Paragraph (1) of section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures) is amended by striking ``to carry out section 9003(h)'' and all that follows and inserting ``to carry out--
``(A) section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986), and
``(A) section 9004(f) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act of 1997).''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the estimable Yogi Berra said, ``It's like deja vu all over again.'' H.R. 688 is the same Leaking Underground Storage Tank bill we passed by a voice vote on the floor just 7 months ago in the last Congress. Except for a couple of technical, completely nonsubstantive changes, everything is the same except the number.
The LUST program cleans up leaking underground storage tanks and requires tank owners to put in new tanks meeting tough Federal standards by the end of next year. The program is funded by a dedicated trust fund.
Owners of cars pay taxes into the LUST trust fund. On every gallon of gas we pay a one-tenth of a cent tax for the LUST program. This tax went into effect in 1987 and expired at the end of 1995, but only 40 percent of the money we have paid has been spent out on the program. We have spent only $655 million on LUST since 1987 out of $1.7 billion collected. Before we give the taxes another ride, we ought to look carefully at using what we have already collected. Congress did not create the trust fund for the sake of having another trust fund; it was created to fund this particular program.
In contrast with some other environmental programs, we taxpayers seem to have gotten an effective program for our LUST money. With financial assistance from EPA cooperative agreements, States have secured cleanup of 140,000 sites since 1987. Contrast this with Superfund. Taxpayers spent $17 billion through the EPA alone in 17 years and only 130 sites or so were taken off the list of the country's worst sites. States should have a bigger role in running Superfund.
While I am on the subject, I want Members to know we are working on Superfund reform in my subcommittee on a bipartisan basis with the administration, and I hope our efforts will result in a bill with bipartisan support from our full committee.
Back to LUST, H.R. 688 improves the LUST program in two ways:
First, it requires EPA to give at least 85 percent of its appropriation to the States each year. This puts the money where the tanks are and where the cleanup work is done.
Second, the bill authorizes three new uses of the Federal funding, giving States flexibility to make their programs more effective by, one, putting the money into their financial assurance funds for tank cleanup in cases of financial hardship; two, enforcing requirements that underground tanks meet minimum leak detection and prevention standards by 1998; and, three, administering their State assurance funds.
Less than 30 percent of tank owners have come into compliance with the EPA tank requirements that all tank owners will have to meet in 1998. We need to help States meet the financial burdens of the huge enforcement task that is coming down the pike next year.
The bill also prohibits States from using the money to help someone comply with the 1998 tank requirements so tax dollars will not be used to put people who have already complied with the law at a competitive disadvantage.
This is another good bill for the environment from the Committee on Commerce, and I encourage Members to support this bill as they did just 7 months ago on the floor.
I congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, the sponsor of the bill, for his work, as well as the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bart Stupak, the chief Democrat cosponsor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, and members of the committee for working together in taking this major step forward on moving this very important bill. I appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, and his staff. We have worked together well the past Congress and this Congress to put forth this leaking underground storage tank legislation.
{time} 1845
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program is one of the most important and least known environmental programs run by the Federal Government and the States. The act regulates the use of large underground tanks that hold petroleum products. One need only to go to their local gas station to find tanks regulated underneath this act.
This is the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress. In this report, which list each State, this report states that the leaking underground storage tanks are the most frequent cause of groundwater contamination. Unfortunately, the Committee on Appropriations does not feel our Nation's groundwater is as high a priority as many of us here in this Chamber believe tonight. In fiscal year 1997, the Committee on Appropriations cut the President's request by more than a third for the funds necessary to help us clean up leaking underground storage tanks.
The Committee on Appropriation's actions are even more frustrating because the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program is funded, as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, from a tax on petroleum products. Currently, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, or LUST, as it is called, has a billion dollar surplus. I will continue to join with my colleagues, especially the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, in the fight to increase the appropriations for this program.
In Michigan, my State, the State's leaking underground storage tank fund is insolvent due to improper management and funding. In Michigan, the fund is not accepting new claims, and cleanups on leaking underground tanks have all but ceased. Although I believe the legislation being discussed here tonight is an important step in cleaning up leaking tanks, it is my hope that States, and Michigan in particular, will renew their commitment to this program.
Beyond any doubt, H.R. 688 will make improvements to the program. These improvements will increase the amount of funding available for contaminated sites, increase the amount of money for State enforcement, and guarantee that the money Congress appropriates for this program will get to the States.
This legislation does not completely turn the program over to the States. We have maintained a strong role for the EPA in this legislation by preserving the current cooperative agreement process between the States and the Federal Government. This bill does not decrease the Federal role in the LUST program. Rather, it will strengthen the Federal-State partnership that has been successful since the program's inception.
The bill before us today will not require the Committee on Appropriations to direct more resources to this problem. However, it will strengthen the EPA's partnership with the States and increase EPA's flexibility to use this money for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program and get that money back to the States.
I would like to comment briefly, if I may, just on a few points that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] made about the Superfund Program and its comparison with the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program. Although we are certainly not here to debate Superfund issues tonight, it is clear that in order to achieve our mutual goal of improving the Superfund Program, we must take a full and fair look at the program as it exists today.
I have heard too many times from my Republican friends that very few Superfund sites have been cleaned up despite heavy expenditures. These statements are no more than old, worn out political rhetoric. The facts reveal an entirely different landscape:
Out of the 1,335 National Priorities List sites, 1,100 of those sites have had significant on-site, physical cleanup work performed. Those 1,100 sites break down as follows:
At 400 sites, all cleanup construction has been completed; at 500 sites, actual cleanup construction is under way, such as construction of a slurry wall for installation of a treatment system; and at 200 sites, significant removal work has been completed to abate an imminent hazard.
Mr. Speaker, in my district, Manistee Harbor, we were just there the other night to sign the final documents between the State of Michigan, industry, environmental groups, and the Federal Government, because we have taken a site that was on the Superfund that put PCBs out into Lake Michigan, and in less than 3 years we have most of it cleaned up. Everybody has agreed upon a solution. It is being done, and it has been a record cleanup for a Superfund site. That could not have happened without the help of my friends on the Republican side.
Mr. Speaker, Superfund expenditures to date have totaled $13 billion, not the wildly inflated figures we hear. It is my hope, and if we take Manistee Harbor as an example, that our mutual efforts on this bill here tonight will serve as an example of how we can work together on the more difficult issue of Superfund reauthorization. We should examine the facts and the progress of the Superfund Program today in order to achieve a bipartisan consensus on improving Superfund.
I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, and their staffs, as we work this bill the rest of the way through, through the Senate, and on to the conference committee, and even to the White House, and I hope we can do the same with Superfund.
On today's bill, I would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, and his staff person Patrick O'Keefe, as well as Alison Burkes of the minority staff; Fred Eases from the majority and Matt Berzok on my staff for all their hard work over the past year on this very important program, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer.
(Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I again want to certainly thank the gentleman from Ohio and the ranking members of this committee for moving this finally along.
The objectives of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act, which is H.R. 688, are really simple. This is identical to the bill that we passed last year, ran out of time, but I think it is very imperative that we finally get back to it. It is going to give the States, as has been stated, more financial stability in operating their underground storage tank programs and greater flexibility to address unique environmental problems, particularly in rural America.
Throughout the drafting process, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] and I solicited and received substantial input on how to best achieve our goals. As a result, the final product we have before us today meets all our initial goals, with a strong emphasis on quicker cleanups and stricter enforcement. H.R. 688 has over 70 bipartisan cosponsors and diverse private sector support.
The so-called LUST program was first enacted in 1984. The trust fund followed in 1986. The current LUST statute allows States to spend the Federal LUST trust fund money in a limited number of instances, mainly for corrective actions where an owner is unable, or unwilling, to clean up a leak.
Along with the corrective action standards for leaking tanks, the LUST statute also requires owners and operators of underground storage tanks to meet certain standards. The deadline for compliance with these tank standards is 1998. When implemented, the tank standards will provide an important preventative protection against many future leaks.
The LUST program has largely been a success. The regulated industry and the EPA tank office share a good working relationship. However, over the next few years the nature of the program is going to change dramatically. EPA has stated it envisions drastically scaling back the tank office. States will supervise corrective action where leaks have occurred and become the primary enforcers for the tank standards.
I certainly support this progression. However, if we expect States to carry out more duties, it is critical that they must be given more freedom to use LUST trust fund money where most needed.
Finally, EPA has traditionally dedicated about 85 percent of its annual LUST trust fund appropriation to the States. But as State responsibilities do increase, we need to give them peace of mind that this tradition will continue. H.R. 688 gives this financial stability.
I want to thank all those involved in crafting this bill. The process has embodied the spirit of bipartisanship and compromise. Our final product increases enforcement and enhances site cleanups with the broad-based support of the regulated industry.
I again want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] for all his work on this, and certainly again thank the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Oxley], and on my staff Patrick O'Keefe for staying with this issue for so long.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this sound environmental initiative.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle] who was a valuable asset in drafting this legislation and as a member of the Committee on Science certainly understands it.
(Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 688. I want to thank the bill's sponsors, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, and my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, for their diligent leadership on this issue.
The LUST program was enacted in 1984 to address the potential health and environmental risks associated with antiquated and substandard underground storage tanks. A tax was levied on all petroleum products to create a trust fund to fund these efforts. That tax expired on December 31, 1995, with nearly $1 billion in the trust fund.
Unfortunately, the majority of these funds expended so far have gone to offset general Federal spending and not for the purpose to which it was meant to be dedicated.
The LUST Amendments Act gives the ironclad assurance that trust fund spending will go to assisting States to pursue compliance and corrective action associated with the LUST program. It also gives the States more flexibility in using these funds, including direct use of Federal LUST trust fund money to help business owners who would otherwise be unable to afford Government-mandated cleanups.
These cleanups are pivotal to comprehensive economic revitalization efforts like the one many of us in the Pennsylvania delegation are looking at for Allegheny County and for the Mon Valley region in particular.
We have a good program here, and Congress in its wisdom found a sound funding mechanism for it. Let us demonstrate our good faith to small businesses in this sector and move this legislation forward without delay.
Last year, the Congress passed this legislation, but the Senate failed to act on it before adjournment last October. Since this year's version is identical to the previously approved bill, I expect the House will act expeditiously to pass the LUST Amendments Act. Hopefully, this will give the Senate ample time to send this legislation to the President for his approval.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 688, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act. As an original cosponsor of the legislation, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, for introducing this bill and working for its enactment.
Across the Nation, leaking underground storage tanks present a hazard which must be addressed. Unfortunately, less than half of the identified leaking tanks have been remedied. In addition, there are likely thousands of other unidentified leaking tanks which require action.
This legislation improves the current situation by distributing more money from the existing trust fund to the States where it belongs. The trust fund was established by Congress in 1986 and currently contains about $1 billion. Although the trust fund is intended to provide assistance in the cleanup of underground storage tanks, too much of the money in the trust fund has been used to offset general Federal spending.
This Member certainly believes that the money in the trust fund should be used for the purposes for which it was originally intended; money simply accumulating in the trust fund obviously does not address the current needs. The large number of remaining leaking underground storage tank sites is evidence that the States could use this money which is currently accumulating in the trust fund. This bill would assist States in more efficiently receiving and disbursing money from the trust fund. It would also give the States increased flexibility in the use of money from the trust fund.
This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 688.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Commerce Committee's Finance and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, I rise in support of H.R. 688, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Act, commonly referred to as the LUST program.
My colleague, Mr. Schaefer, has developed a well-crafted piece of legislation which has two primary purposes. The first is to ensure that 85 percent of the money Congress appropriates for the program goes to the States; and to expand the uses for which the trust fund moneys can be used.
In 1986, Congress created the LUST Trust Fund, paid for with a one-
tenth of one cent per gallon tax on motor fuels. The Trust Fund is to be used by the EPA or the States, in accordance with Federal law, to enforce Underground Storage Tank corrective action requirements; to conduct cleanups where no solvent responsible party can be found, where there is a known but unwilling responsible party, or where a responsible party does not have the financial ability to pay for the entire cleanup.
Unlike many other well-intentioned bills enacted by Congress, which then fall victim to the law of unintended consequences, the LUST program has met its intended purpose to set leak detection and prevention standards for underground tanks.
H.R. 688 improves on the current program because it provides an increased amount of stability and certainty to State agencies while granting greater flexibility.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 688.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, once again for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 688, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up