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 · May 13, 1993
Toxic Cleanup Equity Act of 1993 - Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to absolve municipalities or other persons of liability (other than to the President) for claims of contribution or other response costs for the generation, transportation, or arrangement for the transportation, treatment, or disposal of municipal solid waste or sewage sludge. Authorizes eligible persons or municipalities (defined as persons or municipalities against whom administrative or judicial actions are brought, or to whom notice is given of potential liability, for activities involving municipal solid waste or sewage sludge) to settle their liability with the President. Requires final settlements with eligible persons to: (1) allocate to all activities for the management of municipal solid waste or sewage sludge a combined maximum of four percent of the total response costs for the facility; (2) require eligible persons to pay only equitable shares of the maximum percentage; (3) limit payments based on inability to pay, litigative risks, and other equitable factors; (4) permit in-kind services with regard to response actions in lieu of cash contributions; (5) limit a publicly owned treatment works' payments if it has promoted the reuse of sewage sludge through land application; and (6) be reached even if a person is liable under other CERCLA provisions. Authorizes the President to provide a covenant not to sue to persons who have entered into settlements. Absolves such persons of liability for contributions or other response costs for matters addressed in settlements. Reduces others' potential liability by the amount of a settlement, but bars discharging potentially responsible parties unless the settlement so provides. Applies settlement provisions applicable to eligible persons to future disposal practices of municipalities or treatment works if specified conditions are met. Requires final settlements with eligible municipalities to conform to specified criteria, including: (1) public interest factors; (2) consideration of ability to pay; and (3) in-kind services in lieu of cash contributions. Makes this Act retroactively effective to all actions commenced before this Act's effective date unless a final court judgment or approval of a settlement agreement has been granted.
People & committees
Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R. [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 S5947-5948, S5951-5953)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.965 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.965 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.965 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.965 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.