[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 37 (Monday, March 15, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1499-S1500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SUPERFUND SITES

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the House is on my mind right 
now, since the House seems to have something important going on with 
regard to something known as health care reform and health insurance 
reform. We are waiting expectantly to hear information that the House 
will get the votes together and pass the Senate-passed bill on health 
reform that we passed on Christmas Eve.
  But I came to speak about another subject today, something I voted on 
when I was a young Congressman, way back in 1980, and that something 
was known as the Clean Water and Clean Air Act. One of the parts of 
that legislation--it has a fancy name, but in essence that is what it 
was, clean air and clean water--one of the major thrusts of the 
legislation was that we had these toxic waste dumps all over the 
country. They were first exposed by a toxic canal, called Love Canal, 
in the State of New York. The cause for the toxic dump, the company, 
was long since gone, probably bankrupt, and, therefore, there was no 
financial means by which we could go about cleaning it up. We couldn't 
get to the responsible party because they had long since left town or 
they had long since gone through a series of bankruptcies and there 
were no funds available to clean it up, and that left it on all the 
rest of us--the taxpayers.
  What we found was there were a lot of these places all over the 
country. This was particularly true in my State of Florida. All of 
these sites are now called Superfund sites, named after the trust fund 
that was being set up, filled with trust fund money that would come 
from a fee being imposed upon the industries that were doing the 
polluting. The concept was that the polluter was going to pay instead 
of the average taxpayer, and they called this trust fund the Superfund. 
So they called these sites the Superfund sites. In my State, we have 52 
of these sites, and we have another 13 identified. But nationwide there 
are over 1,200 of these sites that have already been named and which 
need to be cleaned up.
  Here is the problem. Why aren't they cleaned up? Well, as I said, 
when I was a young Congressman and we passed this new law, we were 
going to have the financial means to clean up these sites by having the 
industries that were polluting pay a fee that annually would go into 
this trust fund and, in return, they were getting something. They were 
getting relieved of any financial liability. That was the deal. This 
law operated along fine for about 15 years, and it came up for renewal, 
and lo and behold, those industries activated their lobbyists and they 
killed the reimposition of that fee in the mid-1990s. So they got off 
scot free because they don't have any more liability, but they are not 
paying their fair share.
  The industries were the petroleum industry--and it was a minor tax 
that was imposed on the production of oil and the importation of 
foreign oil into this country--and the chemical industry, in 42 
chemicals that were produced, and there was a small fee that was 
assessed for that which went in and filled up this fund basically to 
the tune of about $1.3 billion a year. But along come the mid-1990s and 
those industries activate their lobbyists and they kill the fees on a 
going-forward basis--but they didn't kill their relief from liability.

  What we have now is a trust fund that is depleted of money. We have

[[Page S1500]]

over 1,200 sites all over the country that desperately need to be 
cleaned up. There is no money except going to the American taxpayer and 
getting the money to keep cleaning up these sites.
  What we need to do is to reimpose the fee so we go back to the 
original agreement with these polluting industries; in other words, the 
polluters paid into the trust fund and they got that in exchange for 
relieving them of liability for the pollution that left these toxic 
dumps.
  I am introducing legislation that would cause this to occur. The 
President has recommended it. He has recommended a provision by which 
it would fill the trust fund partially by $1.3 billion in the first 
year from these fees and thereafter $2.5 billion a year. I am changing 
the recommendation from the President a little bit because the 
President is imposing a corporate fee as well and I do not think that 
corporations that did not have anything to do with polluting ought to 
be paying this fee. I think it ought to be assessed only on those 
corporations that were a part of the polluting under the original 
theory of the law back in 1980, so that is how I have changed the 
legislation from what the President has recommended. I will be 
introducing this shortly. I am going to send it around to our 
colleagues and I hope they will join me as cosponsors.
  I want to tell you about one of these sites I visited this morning in 
Jacksonville, FL. It is right on the St. Johns River. It is right next 
to one of the main sites of the Port of Jacksonville, which is a major 
national seaport. It is 31 acres and it is all fenced, with signs with 
a skull and crossbones that say: Don't go on the property because you 
could get cancer.
  As a matter of fact, EPA has done an analysis of this. They say the 
toxic chemicals on this site, if somebody were to drink the water, if 
somebody were to live there, if somebody were to go and scratch around 
in the sand, they could be exposed to cancer-causing agents. Can you 
imagine. That is right in the middle of a big city, next to the St. 
Johns River where the runoff is going into the St. Johns River, and 
guess who is ingesting that? The fish in the river and the mammals in 
the river.
  What we need to do is clean up these sites. This site is a typical 
one. It started over a century ago, in the late 1890s. It was a 
fertilizer plant. It operated for almost a century. It was shut down in 
the 1980s and then it was declared a Superfund site a few years ago. 
Analysis showed just what kind of toxic things were there. EPA, doing 
an analysis of this, has said it could affect nervous disorders; it 
could cause cancer. They have gone through a whole list of potential 
terrible health effects that could occur from something that could come 
from somebody being exposed to this site.
  There is another reason we want to close up this site. That is that 
this 31 acres is sitting right next to the major part of the Port of 
Jacksonville, which is going to significantly expand once the Panama 
Canal is widened and the superships that have these cargo containers on 
them are able to come from Asia, through the Panama Canal to the east 
coast of the United States. The Port of Jacksonville will significantly 
expand and this particular location called the Talleyrand part of the 
Port of Jacksonville will be able to expand by 31 acres, right on the 
St. Johns River, right next to the Port of Jacksonville. That is highly 
desirable real estate, of which you cannot dare even go through the 
fence and walk on the land because of the potential toxic exposure.
  Remember, this is just one of 1,200 sites across America that needs 
to be cleaned up. That is the reason people now should clearly 
understand, under the theory that the polluter pays, why we need to 
reinstitute the original agreement struck in 1980 for the trust fund to 
be filled by the fee associated with these toxic substances and 
therefore be able to clean up these sites for the benefit of the 
American taxpayer.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________