To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to delay the implementation of remedial action and design for a particular Superfund site for one year while undertaking monitoring and testing to determine whether further action is needed.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 20, 1995
Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to: (1) delay for one year any remedial action or design for the Burn Pit Superfund Site located at New Hanover County Airport, North Carolina; (2) test the site to determine the amount of contamination; and (3) at the end of the year, determine whether the level of contamination at the Site is acceptable. Provides that if the contamination level is acceptable, the Administrator may not implement any further remedial action or design for the Site and the potentially responsible parties shall have no further liability for the Site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.1901 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.1901 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.1901 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.1901 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.