[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 15, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S859-S860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Corzine, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 173. 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 reintroducing 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 fees on oil, chemical and other industries to 
ensure that the Superfund Trust Fund, is solvent and that polluters, 
not American taxpayers, bear the burden of cleaning up sites that pose 
a threat to the health and safety of our communities.
  I am pleased to be reintroducing this bill with Senator Chafee.  In 
the 107th Congress, we worked together on a number of issues as the 
Chair and Ranking Member of the Superfund Subcommittee of the 
Environmental and Public Works Committee. I look forward to continuing 
that relationship.
  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 and that 
includes 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 that 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 
worked. Great progress was being made. Since the creation of this 
program, over 800 sites have been cleaned up. During the last four 
years of the Clinton administration, an average of 87 final cleanups 
occurred each year.
  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. In 2002, only 42 sites were cleaned up.
  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 will address.
  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. These fees are not large in scope. For 
example, for every barrel of oil it would only cost 9.7 cents. 
Manufacturers would only pay $4.45 for every ton of arsenic or mercury 
they produce. In addition, corporations that have over $2 million in 
taxable income under the alternative minimum tax would be required to 
pay only 0.12 percent on taxable income above $2 million dollars. That 
means that a company that has a taxable income of $2,010,000 would pay 
only $12.
  These companies make millions on their sales. This fee is a small 
price to pay for a healthy, safe environment.
  Unfortunately, the polluter's fee expired in 1995. President Clinton 
repeatedly tried to get it reinstated. President Bush has refused to do 
so in his past budgets, and indications are that he will not do so in 
the future. This means that a greater and greater share of the cost of 
Superfund cleanups will be borne by taxpayers rather than polluters.
  In fact, the general taxpayers contributed just 18 percent to the 
Superfund in 1995. The figure is rising and American taxpayers will pay 
54 percent of the Superfund budget by 2003.
  This is unacceptable. That is why we are introducing the Toxic Clean-
up

[[Page S860]]

Polluter Pays Renewal Act. The principle of ``polluter pays'' must be 
protected, and the Superfund fees must be reinstated.
  Polluter pays is fair. Polluter 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 it back on the health of 
the American people.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join Senators Boxer, Chafee, and 
others to introduce The Toxic Clean Up and Polluter Pays Renewal Act 
for. For more than 20 years, the polluter pays principle has been a 
cornerstone of environmental policy. The Superfund toxic waste cleanup 
program, based on that principle, has made it possible to clean up 
hundreds of toxic waste dumps across the country, and has led to better 
management of industrial pollution and waste.
  The polluter pays principle is now under attack. Last year, the Bush 
administration announced that it would not seek reauthorization of the 
taxes levied on oil and chemical companies that go into the Superfund 
trust fund, which is used to pay for cleanup of toxic waste sites.
  The Superfund program established three ways to pay for the cost of 
cleanups: 1) the company or individual responsible for creating the 
site pays for its cleanup; 2) the Environmental Protection Agency 
performs the cleanups and recoups the costs from the responsible party 
or parties; and 3) for those ``orphan'' sites where no responsible 
party can be found, or the party is insolvent or no longer in business, 
the cleanup is paid for out of the trust fund.
  The Superfund trust fund was created primarily with revenue from a 
corporate environmental income tax and excise taxes on petroleum and 
certain chemicals. The trust fund received about $1.5 billion per year 
before the legislative authority to collect the taxes expired at the 
end of 1995. The trust fund is expected to run out of money in 2004, 
having dwindled from a high of $3.8 billion in 1996 to $28 million this 
year.
  There are 1,234 sites on the EPA national priority list of toxic 
waste sites that need to be cleaned up. One in four Americans live 
within 4 miles of a Superfund site. These sites contain hazardous 
pollutants like arsenic, cyanide, and agent orange. Last year, EPA 
Administrator Christine Whitman told Congress that 75 sites on the 
national priority list would be cleaned up in 2001 and 65 sites would 
be cleaned up in 2002. The Bush administration then revised its plan, 
requiring that only 47 site cleanups be completed in 2001 and 42 in 
2002. For 2003, the Bush administration has proposed to further 
decrease cleanups. On October 25, 2002, the EPA Inspector General found 
that the Bush administration has cut funding at 55 Superfund sites in 
25 states for which regional officials had requested cleanup. For 
Fiscal Year 2002, EPA regional officials requested $510 million to 
clean up waste sites. In response, EPA headquarters obligated only $280 
million, resulting in a shortfall of $229 million, or 45 percent.
  The program is insufficiently funded to allow sites that are already 
scheduled to be cleaned up to move forward. This results in increased 
risks to human health and the environment and increased cleanup costs 
in the long term. Reinstating the Superfund fee would restore a source 
of funding to the program at a time when the backlog of sites requires 
more resources if the program is to be successful. The Bush 
administration is the first administration since Superfund was enacted 
in 1980 to oppose reinstating this tax on polluters--a policy that 
either halts cleanup efforts or shifts the cost to rank-and-file 
taxpayers. Either result is unacceptable.
  The administration's plan to cut the Superfund program would 
seriously compromise the health of our communities and amount to an 
enormous windfall for the oil and chemical industries. Funding is the 
key to cleaning up these sites and protecting communities from harm. 
The ``polluter pays'' principle has worked well over the last two 
decades, and the financial burden should not be shifted from polluters 
to average taxpayers. The administration should change course and find 
ways to restore the ``polluter pays'' principle to the program and 
aggressively fund cleanups at contaminated sites.
                                 ______