[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E269-E270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       INTRODUCTION OF THE SUPERFUND RECYCLING EQUITY ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                      HON. BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN

                              of arkansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, February 3, 1995
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation along 
with Mr. Upton, Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Manton, Mr. Gillmor, and 
Mr. Tauzin to relieve legitimate recyclers from Superfund liability. We 
introduced similar language last year with bipartisan support. This 
language was developed in conjunction with the recycling industry, the 
environmental community and the Federal Government and was incorporated 
into the 
[[Page E270]] Superfund Reform Act of 1994 in the 103d Congress.
  The Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1995 is intended to place 
traditional recyclable, or secondary, materials which are used as 
feedstocks in the manufacturing process on an equal footing with their 
virgin, or primary, materials counterparts. Traditional recyclables are 
made from paper, glass, plastic, metals, textiles, and rubber.
  This legislation has become necessary because of an unintended 
consequence of the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act [CERCLA] or Superfund. Some courts have interpreted 
CERCLA to mean that the sale of certain traditional recyclable 
feedstocks is an arrangement for the treatment or disposal of a 
hazardous substance and, therefore, fully subject to Superfund 
liability. While there exists in law and legislative history no 
suggestion whatever that the Congress intended to impede recycling in 
America by providing a strong preference for the use of virgin 
materials through the Superfund liability scheme, that is precisely 
what as happened.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people and their elected leaders have 
insisted that the recycling rates in our country increase, not 
decrease. I am offering the Superfund Recycling Equity Act of 1995 to 
encourage more, not less, recycling. Intuitively, our citizens know 
that increased recycling means less use of natural resources, which 
both extends the life of those resources and minimizes any adverse 
environmental impacts of their exploitation.
  The use of recyclables is also of importance to the achievement of 
the goals of pollution prevention and waste minimization, which have 
taken on increased importance in the environmental debates of the past 
few years. For example, the use of recycled steel results in a 90 
percent savings in virgin material use, 40 percent reduction in water 
use, 76 percent reduction in water pollution and a 97 percent reduction 
in mining waste over the use of virgin ores. Recycling is also more 
energy efficient than the production of primary metals. As an 
illustration, using recycled materials in place of virgin materials 
results in tremendous energy savings: 95 percent for aluminum 
production, 75 percent for iron and steel, 64 percent for paper, and 80 
percent for plastics.
  Let me now address what my bill does--and does not--do. The Superfund 
Recycling Equity Act of 1995 acknowledges that the Congress did not 
intend to subject to Superfund liability those governmental or private 
entities who collect and process secondary materials for sale as 
feedstocks for manufacturing. This bill removes from liability those 
who collect, process, and sell to manufacturers paper, glass, plastic, 
metal textiles, and rubber recyclables. This bill also exempts from 
liability those individuals who collect lead acid, nickel, cadmium, and 
other batteries for the recycling of the valuable components. However, 
my CERCLA bill does not address or exempt chemical, solvent, sludge, or 
slag recycling. It addresses traditional recyclables in a CERCLA 
context only. I do not intend it to be viewed as a precedent for any 
other amendment to Superfund or to any other environmental statute, 
whatsoever.
  It should also be clearly understood that this bill addresses the 
product of recyclers, that is the recyclables they sell which are 
utilized to make new products. This does not effect liability for 
contamination that is created at a facility owned or operated by a 
recycler. Neither does it affect liability related to any process 
wastes sent by a recycler for treatment or disposal. In order to assure 
that only bonafide recycling facilities benefit from this bill, I have 
established a number of tests by which liability relief will be denied 
to sham recyclers.
  I encourage my colleagues to support and cosponsor this worthwhile 
piece of legislation that will promote the practice of recycling to 
preserve our natural resources and the environmental integrity of this 
country.


                          ____________________