[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 40 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               SUPERFUND

                                 ______


                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 14, 1994

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we should proceed this year 
to the kind of reform of the Superfund law that the Clinton 
administration has proposed, and that many of our colleagues in the 
House have been advocating. I am a cosponsor with the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] of one approach to that, particularly 
affecting municipalities. And a broader overhaul is necessary. While 
some environmentalists have expressed concern about this, I think the 
attached editorial from the New Bedford Standard Times effectively 
refutes that argument and makes a compelling case for going forward. 
The people of New Bedford, and the Standard Times which reports on 
their activities, have a good deal of experience with the strengths and 
weaknesses of the Superfund Program. This editorial from the Standard 
Times draws quite sensibly on the experience of New Bedford and of 
other industrial communities, and I believe it sets forward a very 
strong case for proceeding to reform Superfund. Because it does deal so 
thoughtfully with a major issue before us, I ask that it be reprinted 
here.

        Leave Superfund Untouched, and Years of Delay Guaranteed

       New Bedford harbor has been on the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's Superfund list since 1983. Sullivan's Ledge, near 
     the city's municipal golf course, has been on it since 1984. 
     The Re-Solve site in North Dartmouth has been listed since 
     1983. And the Atlas Tack site in Fairhaven has been listed 
     since 1990.
       None of them has been cleaned up. The Re-solve site is well 
     ahead of the others, having been the subject of EPA attention 
     from the moment it was put on the list. Re-Solve early on was 
     designated as a demonstration project to show the world what 
     the 1980 Superfund law could do in action. But in 1994 it is 
     still in progress. As for the others--they lag far behind, 
     for various reasons.
       But they are not unique. There are dozens of Superfund 
     hazardous waste sites in Massachusetts, and 1,289 listed 
     across the United States--a number expected to reach 3,000. 
     Yet just 58 have been officially ``de-listed,'' and 234 
     others have been cleaned but not yet given official 
     clearance.
       If anyone wants to know what is holding up the works, 
     observe the old adage: Follow the money. Paying for these 
     cleanups is extremely expensive and those held responsible 
     have spent fortunes taking others to court to share in the 
     pain of undoing what they did in the old days of rampant 
     pollution. And as anyone who has ever had anything to do with 
     a civil lawsuit knows, going to court means delays and added 
     costs heaped upon one another.
       So it is no surprise that the slow-moving, fine-grinding 
     judicial system has thrown a monkey wrench into the Superfund 
     works, frustrating virtually everyone involved.
       Now President Clinton has proposed an alternative method of 
     financing the cleanups via a surcharge on insurance companies 
     and a system of mediation to replace the endless litigation. 
     A coalition of corporations and insurance companies is 
     backing something very similar.
       And environmentalists are in a panic.
       ``Any opening by Congress of the Superfund law at this 
     point is an environmental Pandora's box resulting in one of 
     the most serious setbacks in environmental policy in 20 
     years,'' huffed Rick Hind of Greenpeace. He and others want 
     to put off for at least a year any rewrite of the Superfund 
     law; they fear that the polluters are in cahoots with the 
     insurance companies to avoid forking over the money that is 
     their responsibility.
       But Greenpeace and others cannot possibly be happy with the 
     lack of progress being made under Superfund as it is. If we 
     are married to the existing system, then we are guaranteed 
     year upon year of delay while we spend a third or more of the 
     cleanup money on lawyers. This cannot possibly be what Mr. 
     Hind wants, and it is certainly not what Mr. Clinton wants.
       So while it is reasonable to be suspicious about those 
     polluters and insurers who might want to escape 
     responsibility, it is also sensible to realize that the 
     Superfund law is so hamstrung by the judicial system and the 
     money chase that some way has to be found to speed things up. 
     Unless, of course, environmental lawyers are enjoying too 
     much of a good thing, too.

                          ____________________