[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 73 (Thursday, June 6, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5208-S5209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Torricelli, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 2596. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the financing of the Superfund; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill 
that addresses a critical gap that now exists in the funding for the 
clean-up of the Nation's most toxic waste sites. The Toxic Clean-up 
Polluter Pays Renewal Act restores the fees on oil, chemical and other 
industries to ensure that the Superfund trust fund is solvent, and that 
polluters, not the American Taxpayers, bear the burden of cleaning up 
sites that pose a threat to the health and safety of our communities.
  I am also pleased to be joined in this effort by the ranking member 
of the Superfund Subcommittee, Senator Chafee as well as the chairman 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords. As 
Chair of the Superfund Subcommittee, I thank them for joining me in 
this effort.
  Senators Torricelli, Corizine, and Biden are also cosponsers.
  The threats posed by Superfund sites affect communities in every 
corner of the country. One in every four Americans lives within four 
miles of a Superfund site. That's 70 million Americans, including 10 
million children, who are at risk of cancer and other health problems.
  My State of California has the second highest number of Superfund 
sites in the country after New Jersey. And more than 40 percent of 
Californians live within four miles of a Superfund site.
  Anyone who lives anywhere near a Superfund site knows about the 
terrible damage these industrial sites do to the community. Parents 
worry if their kids are safe when they find out there is a toxic mess 
down the street; real estate values go down the drain; and major 
challenges must be overcome to get the responsible parties to own up to 
their responsibility.
  Fortunately, after Love Canal in 1980, Congress enacted the Superfund 
law to address the serious threat posed by these sites. And this law 
has worked. Great progress was made. Since the creation of this program 
over 800 sites have been cleaned up. During the last four years of the 
Clinton Administration, there was an average of 87 final cleanups a 
year.

[[Page S5209]]

  Unfortunately, this program has seen a sharp decline since the start 
of the Bush Administration. The pace of cleanups has slowed to a crawl. 
Instead of 87 National Priority List sites a year, less than half of 
that are now being cleaned-up. The number is projected to drop further, 
to just 40 sites, this year.
  At the same time, the heart of the Superfund law is under attack: the 
principle that polluters must pay for cleanups. And that is the issue 
that my bill addresses.
  The Superfund trust fund, which includes funds from Superfund fees 
previously paid by oil, chemical, and other industries, is nearly gone. 
It will be depleted by 2004. Why? Because these fees expired in 1995.
  The result is that a greater and greater share of the cost of 
Superfund cleanups is being borne by taxpayers instead of polluters. In 
fact, in 1995, taxpayers contributed just 18 percent to the Superfund 
trust fund. But by next year, American taxpayers will pay 54 percent of 
the Superfund budget.
  This trend must be reversed. We must return to the principle of 
``polluter pays.''
  That is what the Toxic Clean-up Polluter Pays Renewal Act would do. 
It would reinstate the two Superfund fees, the excise tax on oil and 
chemical companies as well as the corporate environmental income tax, 
as they existed from 1986 to 1995.
  These fees are not large in scope. For example, for every barrel of 
oil, the excise tax is only 9.7 cents. Chemical manufacturers pay $4.45 
for every ton of arsenic or mercury they produce. This fee varies based 
on the frequency and toxicity of the chemical.
  With regard to the corporate environmental income tax, corporations 
that have over $2 million in taxable income pay only 0.12 percent on 
taxable income above $2 million dollars. That means that a company that 
has $2,010,000 in taxable income would pay only $12.
  These companies make millions on their sales. This fee is a small 
price to pay for a healthy, safe environment.
  And, while the fees themselves are relatively small, the preliminary 
estimates indicate that they would generate $15 billion to $16 billion 
over the next 10 years for the Superfund Trust Fund. And that is $16 
billion that the American taxpayer would not have to pay.
  After the Superfund fees expired in 1995, President Clinton 
repeatedly tried to have them reinstated. Unfortunately, the Bush 
Administration is not supporting returning to the important principle 
of polluters pays.
  Polluters pays is fair. Polluters pays works. And polluter pays must 
continue. To shift the burden to all taxpayers is wrong, and we will 
fight this Administration's attempt to turn its back on the health of 
the American people.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Boxer to 
introduce a bill to fund the Superfund program for the 10 years. With 
the Superfund Trust Fund on the verge of insolvency and with a large 
number of Superfund sites still requiring cleanup, it is incumbent upon 
us to provide a stable source of funding for this important program. I 
am pleased that the bill we introduce today will ensure Superfund 
cleanups will continue without jeopardizing funding for other key 
programs.
  The need for the Superfund program dates back to the late 1970 and 
the discovery of thousands of barrels of toxic waste buried illegally 
in a New York community outside of Buffalo. Congress responded to Love 
Canal and other sites by enacting Superfund. This law was intended to 
address the Nation's worst sites and ensure that parties are held 
responsible for the contamination they created. Litigation ensued 
throughout the 1980's, which slowed down the pace of cleanups. By the 
1990s, the pace of Superfund cleanups increased. Administrative and 
legislative reforms in the last 10 years have significantly improved 
the effectiveness and pace of the Superfund program.
  Collection of excise and income taxes to supply the Superfund ceased 
at the end of 1995 and have never been reinstated. While spending for 
the Superfund program has remained steady, the dependence on general 
revenue dollars have grown. By fiscal year 2004, the Superfund program 
will be funded virtually entirely by general revenues. Unfortunately, 
we are currently living in an atmosphere of budget deficits. We find 
ourselves unable to pay for key programs due to insufficient resources 
and I believe it is a mistake to make the Superfund program compete for 
those limited general revenue dollars because we did not replenish the 
Superfund Trust Fund.
  The legislation which we have introduced today will reinstate the 
Superfund taxes for 10 years. It is true that these taxes will generate 
less revenue than those that expired in 1995. This is a deliberate 
effort maintain balance between the amount of money paid into the trust 
fund and the amount of money appropriated by Congress. We do not want 
to create a situation in which we are putting more money into the trust 
fund than will be spent. At the same time, we must ensure that 
Superfund cleanups progress as quickly as possible. Despite some claims 
that Superfund cleanups will soon be complete, the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency testified recently before the Environment and Public 
Works Committee that the remaining Superfund sites are complex and 
costly. All evidence points to the fact that the Superfund program is 
not in jeopardy of winding down any time soon and that adequate funding 
will be needed.
  In conclusion, I would like to say that I believe this to be a 
reasonable proposal. It is not perfect, because a perfect solution 
would ensure that the people responsible for the contamination pay to 
clean it up. In the future we may wish to look for more equitable ways 
to fund the Superfund program. However, with the Superfund Trust Fund 
on the verge of insolvency, a return to the previous funding mechanism 
is a prudent step.
                                 ______