[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 36 (Friday, March 15, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2144-S2145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SUPERFUND REFORM

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for the past several years, we have been 
trying to pass legislation to fix the Superfund toxic waste cleanup 
program. Superfund is a program with a tortured history and certainly 
an uneven record of success that can only be described as truly uneven. 
We have accomplished some good things since the law was passed in 1980, 
but those accomplishments under Superfund have come at a tremendous 
cost.
  Almost everyone agrees--and I will say, Mr. President, I do not think 
anyone disagrees--that Congress should enact a Superfund reform bill as 
soon as possible. Even President Clinton said recently that ``we have 
to repair the Superfund toxic waste cleanup program.''
  I agree with the President about the need to fix Superfund. 
Unfortunately, in the speech that the President delivered last Monday, 
March 11, in New Jersey, he went on to attack the Superfund 
reauthorization process now underway in Congress. Using the old worn 
out rhetoric about ``making polluters pay,'' the President 
mischaracterized the proposals on which we are now working.
  I believe it is just plain wrong to imply that the Superfund 
liability reform proposals we are considering would shift costs from 
the polluters to the taxpayers. That is the theme that is being 
sounded. The pending proposals we are considering in the Environment 
and Public Works Committee would do no such thing. What we seek to do 
in the committee is to use money that comes from the three Superfund 
taxes which are levied on the chemical industry, the oil industry, and 
manufacturing corporations, and use the money, which does not come from 
the ordinary taxpayer; it comes through those three entities: chemical 
industry, oil industry, and manufacturing corporations, for the 
cleanup. This is the money that is collected for cleanup. It is paid 
into a Superfund trust fund for the suspected polluting class.

  That is the source of revenues to fund liability reform. No one is 
trying to shift the cost of cleanup to our constituents. Unless one is 
already paying any of the three Superfund taxes, there is no need to 
worry about being made to pay for Superfund. There is no talk about 
letting polluters off the hook and making taxpayers pay. The 
President's advisers know this so why do they continue to misinform him 
about our plans? The President's invocation of the tired old ``polluter 
pays'' rhetoric does not help us get the job done. Maybe some focus 
group somewhere has told the President's advisers that this is a 
winning issue for the administration, but the rhetoric does nothing to 
advance the Superfund policy debate.
  Under Superfund, anyone can be tarred with the polluter stigma. If 
you disposed of something--think of this--legally and in accordance 
with the best practices of the day in the 1970's or the 1960's or the 
1950's or even earlier, you can still be held liable under the 
Superfund law and be called a polluter. You can be held liable for a 
law that passed way after the so-called pollution was done.
  On Monday, the President suggested that Congress should ``help small 
business and communities trapped in the liability net.'' In other 
words, the President said help those communities that dispose of these 
polluting substances before the enactment of Superfund. Let them off 
the hook. I agree with the President, but how can he ask us to let one 
or two groups of polluters off the hook and then complain that we are 
doing something wrong when we try to help others who may be trapped in 
the same liability net? I suppose the logic is that if you are small 
and a public entity--a public entity being a county or a town or city 
or municipality--and you are liable under Superfund, somehow that is 
not pollution. If you let that person off but you are something else, 
presumably if you are a larger business and you are a polluter, you 
cannot let that person off. This, it seems to me, is Superfund logic at 
its worst. It may be good politics, but it is irresponsible in the 
middle of a serious policy debate.
  The timing of the President's remarks was also disappointing. We are

[[Page S2145]]

in the middle, as I say, of a serious policy debate about Superfund in 
the community. In 1993 and 1994, the Democratic administration with a 
Democratic House and a Democratic Senate had 2 years to put together 
and move its own Superfund bill. They came forward with a bill, and 
that excused or limited the liability of big and small polluters in a 
number of ways. Whatever the merits of the bill, Mr. President--and I 
voted for it in committee--it failed to pass either branch of the then 
Democratically controlled House and Democratically controlled Senate. 
Therefore, you had at that time a Democratic President, a Democratic 
House, and a Democratic Senate and they could not make reforms in 
Superfund, showing how difficult this problem is.
  Now, in our committee, Senator Smith has taken the lead and put 
forward a bill some 8 months after we took over the Congress, that is, 
the Republicans. Since introduction of that legislation in the 
subcommittee, Senator Smith and others have met with the administration 
for countless hours to explain the bill, to make technical changes, and 
to clarify its intent where needed. We are in the middle of bipartisan 
negotiations. We are striving to understand the administration's 
concern with the bill and to accommodate it wherever possible. We are 
waiting for more information from the administration on cost concerns 
the administration has raised and the impact of these changes, how they 
affect the agency, for example, and its resources.

  In short, the administration has a serious forum in the Environment 
and Public Works Committee where we are meeting every day to exchange 
views on Superfund. This is why I find it curious and disappointing 
that the administration would choose this particular time to launch a 
factually inaccurate and politically contrived attack on the 
negotiation process and product.
  I have counseled colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the 
committee that I am fortunate enough to chair that we must have a 
bipartisan approach if we are going to solve these complex 
environmental problems. I believe Superfund could be a model for how we 
can reach agreement on a sensitive problem in this year, a difficult 
year because of the political implications of the Presidential 
campaign. I believe Superfund could be a model for how we reach 
agreement on these difficult matters. I fail to understand how the 
President's advisers on environmental issues, who surely understand 
that Superfund proposals cannot be reduced to simple solutions and 
slogans such as ``polluters must pay,'' can engage with us in serious 
negotiations while on the other hand they seek partisan advantage based 
on distortions.
  Mr. President, it is time for the administration to choose. Does it 
want Superfund this year or is it willing to miss this chance and 
permit Superfund to continue to exact its hideous toll on our economy? 
If we are going to fix Superfund, the administration must tone down its 
rhetoric and work with us to fix this badly broken program.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 
minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. I will be brief so the Senate can move 
on.

                          ____________________