PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 26, 2000
Zero Tolerance for Repeat Polluters Act of 2000 - Prescribes additional penalties (with amounts based on the number of violations) for subsequent violations of the same environmental law or separate environmental laws at a site owned or operated by a repeat violator, or for violations for the same regulated activity under one or more environmental laws. Defines a "repeat violator" as a person who has violated the same environmental law at the same site or for the same regulated activity at least twice during the preceding five-year period or any environmental law at the same site or for the same activity at least twice during the preceding three-year period.Prescribes minimum additional penalties for catastrophic events of pollutant releases that result in serious human injury or death or serious environmental damage (or the potential for such injury, death, or damage) or in both serious human injury or death and in serious environmental damage. Bases penalties on the amounts of hazardous air pollutants, criteria air pollutants (as defined under the Clean Air Act), or ozone-depleting substances emitted, or hazardous substances released, in the course of the event, with the highest penalties for cases in which injury or death and environmental damage occur.Authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with respect to any person responsible for creating a condition that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment in violation of an environmental law, to issue an administrative order or bring a civil action seeking relief as necessary to protect human health or the environment. Limits the maximum relief to $10 million, to be paid into the EPA Health and Environmental Trust Fund. Makes the Trust Fund available to pay costs incurred by the Federal Government in addressing a health or environmental threat for which a fine was collected under this section and in accordance with the statutory authority under which the action seeking payment was initiated.
People & committees
Sen. Torricelli, Robert G. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7674)
Introduced in Senate
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.2934 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 S.2934 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 S.2934 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 S.2934 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.