PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 8, 1999
Federal Facility Superfund Compliance Act of 1999 - Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to subject each department, agency, and instrumentality of the Federal Government to all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements regarding response or restoration actions related to releases or potential releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants (current law refers only to compliance with CERCLA provisions) in the same manner and to the same extent as a nongovernmental entity. Waives any U.S. immunity otherwise applicable with respect to any such requirement. Authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue an abatement order to a Federal entity and requires initiation of an administrative enforcement action in the same manner and under the same circumstances as action would be initiated against any other person. Removes provisions for application (and preemption) of State laws concerning removal and remedial action at Federal facilities not on the National Priorities List. Precludes interagency remedial action agreements from impairing or diminishing State authority to enforce requirements of State law, unless such requirements have been addressed or waived without objection from the State.
People & committees
Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Finance 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
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: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.617 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.
Examine H.R.617 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.
Examine H.R.617 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.
Examine H.R.617 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.