[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 91 (Tuesday, July 9, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6434-S6436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss a 
matter that is very related to the whole issue of corporate 
responsibility. Sometimes the people do not connect the issue of the 
environment with corporate responsibility, but I am going to do that 
this morning with the Senator from Illinois, as we touch on some of the 
policies of this administration, which are really, in my view, putting 
us in a very dangerous situation in terms of taking a stand with the 
corporate polluters versus the people of this country who deserve to 
have protection from environmental hazards. This is not a discussion 
about ideology, it is really a discussion about the checks and balances 
that there have to be in this country so we can have robust economic 
growth along with the sense that there will be responsibility and 
people will be protected.
  I have found out, in my long history in politics, that in fact if you 
are good to the environment and if you care about the health and safety 
of people, you will have, actually, development of new businesses to 
deal with pollution and you will have prosperity.
  We go back in the environmental movement to the days when rivers in 
this country were on fire, they had so many hazards in the waterways, 
such as in Ohio and other places. That is what started the Clean Air 
Act. We go back to the days when you could literally see the air in 
some of our big cities. We turned it around in such a way that the 
people benefited both from a healthier environment and a robust 
economy.
  So this argument that we should step away and no longer say to 
corporations that pollute: You have a responsibility to clean up your 
mess--the fact that this administration seems to take that position is 
at odds with our history and is at odds with what we ought to be doing.
  On Monday, July 1, a report by the Environmental Protection Agency 
inspector general was released stating that the EPA has designated 33 
sites in 18 States for cuts in financing for the Superfund cleanup 
program. The reason this administration decided to do this is, frankly, 
they are depleting the Superfund, which is a fund that is set up via a 
fee by polluting corporations, and the administration is not 
interested, at least to now, in making sure that we have that fund, 
that that fund is not depleted.
  The report that was commissioned several months ago by Democrats in

[[Page S6435]]

the House finally did come back. I have to say, as the chair of the 
Superfund Subcommittee in the Environment Committee, we have been 
trying to get this information from EPA for several months. We have not 
been able to get it. I thank my colleagues in the House for going to 
the inspector general.
  The 33 sites are National Priorities List sites, and they are among 
the most toxic in the country. So instead of saying, we are going to 
clean them up, the administration is walking away from them.
  What do these sites contain? Let me say, you may want to know this 
information but you would not want to get near it. The sites contain 
arsenic, Agent Orange, dioxin, and industrial pesticides.
  The report indicates that EPA's Atlanta regional office staff say 
there is a bottleneck on new starts for cleanup and that there must be 
maintenance of cleanup progress. The Dallas office reports they have 
problems. They did not receive $56 million. The Kansas office says they 
need $100 million. The Denver regional office at EPA says they did not 
get the $10 million they were to receive.
  Here is the point. For an administration that says, trust the people 
who are working in the field, this administration has turned its back 
on their regional offices.
  One of the excuses the administration comes up with--and then I will 
yield to my friend from Illinois--is that, well, it is true the Clinton 
sites were cleaned up--I have a chart showing progress that was made 
under President Clinton. We see, in the last 4 years of his 
administration, 88, 87, 85, and 87 sites. That is the number of sites 
that were cleaned up. Under this administration, they told us, when we 
asked them, they wanted to clean up 75, 65, and 40 sites. Now it is 47, 
40, and 40 sites.
  We are looking at a terrible diminution in the number of sites 
cleaned.
  One of the things they say is: Well, there are no tough sites left. 
They were cleaned up by Clinton.
  So we did a little research. One of the sites that was cleaned up by 
the Clinton administration is the Illinois site.
  I want to bring this up so my colleague can hear this. The NL 
Industries Corporation smelter site in Illinois was cleaned up. For 
them to say they didn't clean up any hard sites is ridiculous. The site 
was used for lead smelting operations from the turn of the century 
until 1983. It included 100 square blocks and 1,600 residences were 
affected. Ten percent of the children living near the site had blood 
levels of lead above 10 micrograms, which is an unsafe level. The 
responsible parties fought the EPA. We had to go to the Superfund to 
get the money. It was not a simple site. The cleanup was important for 
the children. The site was cleaned up.
  Why was it cleaned up? Because the Clinton administration used that 
Superfund, and they were committed to cleaning up the site. I am sure 
my colleague will attest to the fact that the site is quite different 
today.
  That is the reality. That is why we are on the floor--because this is 
a great program. It had some problems in the early stages. It wasn't 
moving. But by 1992 it really started.
  It is a sad day when I am here to tell you that this administration 
is not cleaning up its act.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I thank the 
Senator from California for her leadership on this issue. I hope the 
Senator will bear with me for a moment. I think for those who are 
following this debate, a little history goes a long way.
  There was a time in America, in my home State of Illinois, when 
people would strip-mine coal. They would literally drag the coal out 
from just below the surface and leave behind this terrible wasteland 
that looked like craters on the Moon. Over time, people started saying: 
It is not only ugly but the runoff is dangerous, and we ought to 
require the coal companies to restore the land after they have strip-
mined so it can be used for something--so it looks a little bit like it 
looked when God created it.
  That really reflected a kind of change in the national conscience 
which said it isn't enough to take the land, or take parts of America, 
blight them, make them toxic and dangerous for someone to make a 
profit.
  We said, as we looked around America and found toxic waste and 
hazardous waste, that is a danger to our environment, to the people 
living nearby and to the ground water. President Carter--a Democrat--
said let us put together a Superfund tax where the corporations, the 
businesses which are polluting businesses, will pay a tax to pay for 
the cleanup of the mess left from this industrial work.
  The reason I wanted to get into this history a little bit is that, as 
I understand from staff, although it was passed by President Carter--
obviously, a Democrat--and a Democratic Congress, a few years later, in 
1986, President Ronald Reagan--a Republican--not only reauthorized the 
same program but said, yes, corporations around America should be held 
accountable; they should pay a fee or a tax to clean up the toxic waste 
sites across America through the Superfund. Not only did this 
Republican President restore it, but he raised the tax. He said we need 
more money to do this on a national basis.

  Now we had a bipartisan commitment to this concept from a Democratic 
President, Jimmy Carter, and a Republican President, Ronald Reagan. 
They assumed that America would stand behind the concept of corporate 
responsibility when it came to environmental cleanup.
  Now enter President Clinton at a later point. He said to Congress, we 
need to reauthorize this same law to keep up this program. What he ran 
into was a Republican Congress, a probusiness Congress, that said: We 
don't believe that is the right thing to do any longer. So they 
wouldn't reauthorize the Superfund. The collection of about $2 billion 
or more a year to clean up America started evaporating as the taxes and 
fees were not being collected to clean up the polluted mess across 
America. Now we are down to $25 million, or $26 million for all of this 
mess around America.
  The Senator from California, in a bipartisan effort, I might add, 
with Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, says we ought to reestablish the 
Superfund. If it was good enough for Democratic President Carter and 
Republican President Reagan, if Congress--Democratic and Republican--
thought it was a good concept, why are we walking away from it?
  When I was back home on the Fourth of July break, I went to two sites 
in Chicago. I went to one site in the southeastern part of the city. It 
is an industrial graveyard from an operation not many years ago, and 
75,000 manufacturing jobs are now gone. I went to the LTV Steel 
Corporation site, a company that declared bankruptcy just last 
December. I took a look at the toxic waste which the Superfund left 
behind.
  I went up to north to Waukegan. For over 20 years, Waukegan has been 
dealing with mercury and PCBs dumped into Lake Michigan--something we 
value as part of our national heritage. They are in a position of limbo 
with a suspended mix of efforts to clean it up. It is within a stone's 
throw of Lake Michigan. We pointed out the outboard marine site. 
Waukegan said this is a site which won't be cleaned up because the 
Superfund is not being funded again by the Bush administration. They 
refused to put the money into environmental cleanup.
  That is irresponsible. It is irresponsible not to hold liable the 
corporations that produce the chemicals that we find over and over 
again at these sites. If they want to make a profit producing these 
chemicals, is it unreasonable to suggest they pay a fee so they can 
clean up the aftermath of the use of these chemicals which have 
blighted parts of America?
  I say to the Senator from California, as we view this issue, some 
say: There go the Democrats again with their outlandish environmental 
policies. But if you look at the history, this has been a bipartisan 
approach from the start. I ask the Senator from California, who has 
been our leader on this issue, if she could comment on that.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I first thank the Senator from Illinois 
for his eloquence on this subject. Again, this isn't really a 
theoretical thing at all. We see the progress that has been made during 
the last 8 years. It is amazing to look at the difference because there 
were, frankly, problems with the Superfund Program for a while. They 
weren't really doing a good job of it.

[[Page S6436]]

 Under Carol Browner began a shake-up, and they began to get through 
all the problems.
  Here we are. My friend is right. This is not only important for the 
environment, and not only bipartisan, as he pointed out, but it is 
really, in my view, a probusiness situation. When they leave behind a 
mess such as this, then they go somewhere else and go before the 
planning commission in some little place in Illinois, or California, or 
Louisiana, and this big company XYZ wants to come in and do some work 
over here with a plant, what is their record? Now the county supervisor 
or the planning commission can look back and say: Oh, my God, the XYZ 
company left a mess in California. The truth is that the company is not 
going to be welcomed.

  To me, it is probusiness to clean up your mess. It is going to help 
your business. It is, in fact, a part of corporate responsibility. It 
is our responsibility to make sure that polluters pay.
  I want to share a chart with my friend that shows what has happened 
with this program.
  In 1995, 82 percent of the cleanup was paid by industry. Either 
through responsible parties coming forward and paying for the mess they 
made, or the Superfund itself--as my friend points out, as opposed to 
the dollars that are collected from a fee on polluters--only 18 percent 
had to be made up by the general taxpayers.
  By 2003, if the situation continues to deteriorate under this 
President, 46 percent of the cleanup is going to be paid for by our 
constituents who had nothing to do with the dumping of those materials. 
This should fall on the people who made the mess. The polluters should 
pay. It is part of the Superfund.
  As we talk about corporate irresponsibility and as we talk about ways 
we can put confidence back into the system, we shouldn't forget that 
corporate responsibility is reflected in the Superfund Program. It has 
been reflected. It has been a successful program. That is why it was 
embraced by many Republicans. That is why I hope it will be again 
embraced by many, although I am very concerned, frankly, that the 
bipartisan nature of this is slipping away in this atmosphere today.
  I am very proud to have Senator Chafee of Rhode Island as the key 
Republican sponsor of the Superfund legislation.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for one last question, is this 
not the same basic concept as protecting pensions? If a corporation 
accepts the responsibility of going into business, hiring people, 
making a promise that the people who work for them when they retire 
will have a pension, then that corporation violates its trust and 
responsibility and destroys the pension, like the Enron officers 
cashing in on stock while the pensioners were losing everything they 
had in their 401(k)s isn't this a similar situation where if a business 
in America says, I want to create a business here and I want to try to 
make a profit and I am going to hire people to do it, isn't there kind 
of a social contract involved here that says: You can't pollute the 
land and walk away from it as part of doing business in America; part 
of your responsibility as a corporation is to take responsibility for 
keeping that natural heritage we all respect so much protected.
  Eliminating Superfund takes away the responsibility of these 
corporations to clean up their own mess and says no to the families at 
large and businesses across America: It is now your responsibility.
  It seems to me, whether we are talking about pensions or the 
environment, corporate responsibility really applies at the same level. 
I ask the Senator from California, does she see a distinction here? I 
do not.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is an excellent analogy. If a corporation makes 
certain promises to the people they employ and that is part of the 
contract and if a corporation comes into a community to be a good 
neighbor and that is part of the deal, then they should not walk away 
from either. That is why it is important sometimes that the Government, 
the House and Senate, the President, make sure that we get in and 
restore justice.
  Talk about justice, a lot of these sites--take a look at the sites 
shown in purple on the chart--are the major polluted sites. They are in 
every State but North Dakota. My State has the second number. New 
Jersey has the first. Illinois is up there, unfortunately. There are 
many States that are affected.
  We are talking about walking away from a lot of places when we 
deplete the Superfund. We are walking away from ``polluter pays.''
  I thank my friend. There is a definite analogy to be made. He has 
made it very clearly, as he usually does when we talk about the issue 
of corporate responsibility.
  Today we are concentrating on the WorldComs and Global Crossings and 
the Enrons and Arthur Andersens and the ImClones. We know those names 
now. Those names and what is behind those names has propelled us in the 
Senate to take up the very important Sarbanes bill. The Leahy bill will 
be added, and the bill will become the Sarbanes-Leahy bill. We have 
been propelled into action because of, as President Bush says, these 
bad actors.
  I think it goes beyond that to the system. There are no checks and 
balances in that system. If we don't have a Superfund, I say to the 
Senator, we have no check and balance on those bad actors who would 
walk away.
  Let me say to my friend, is he familiar with that site I talked about 
that was cleaned up?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am. I say to the Senator from California, we have three 
Superfund sites in the State of Illinois, another 18 that must go on 
the list, and 6 others we think could be eligible. Frankly, if the Bush 
administration's proposal goes through, it means no Superfund, no 
money, no cleanup. That means the public health hazard will remain.
  Today the President will go to New York to talk about corporate 
responsibility. He wants to throw the bad actors in jail. That makes 
sense. The simple fact is, an actress accused of shoplifting in 
California is facing potentially more prison time than any officer of 
Enron is facing today. I might say, if the President's premise, his 
principle is sound, why do we stop and say it is just when it comes to 
accounting? If a corporation walks away from its responsibility in 
terms of cleaning up the environmental mess they have left behind, why 
aren't we talking about that as being the kind of misconduct that 
should not only be condemned but punished?
  Instead, the administration has said: We don't even want to hold them 
liable for paying for it. No penalty, no crime, they are not even going 
to be liable for paying for the cleanup.
  The Senator from California has made the point so well today: 
Corporate responsibility goes way beyond accounting. It goes into the 
handling of pensions. It goes into the environmental responsibility 
that corporations have.

                          ____________________