[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 29138-29140]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         SUPERFUND TAX RENEWAL

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I stand again in opposition to a proposal 
from my Democratic colleagues that attempts to renew the expired 
Superfund tax for the sole purpose of raising revenue to meet budgetary 
targets. We are once again faced with a policy which advances spending 
for social programs on the backs of small business owners and 
municipalities without any attempt to reform the current program.
  I am puzzled at this current proposal for several reasons. First, it 
is estimated that the Superfund Trust Fund has maintained a surplus of 
$1.5 billion. In addition, appropriation committees in the House and 
Senate have allotted $700 million in general revenue to supplement 
funding for the program through Fiscal Year 2000. According to an 
analysis conducted by the Business Roundtable, it is estimated that the 
Superfund Trust Fund will have sufficient funding through 2002 without 
the need for further taxes.
  Even without the imposition of taxes, contributions to the Superfund 
Trust Fund are plentiful. In 70 percent of all sites responsible 
parties paid cleanup costs in addition to reimbursing the EPA for its 
oversight expenditures. These payments, and the collection of all 
related costs to the EPA, are applied to the Trust Fund. In the 
remaining 30 percent of cases, the responsible parties pay the EPA to 
scrub the contaminated site in addition to paying for oversight costs. 
According to the Chemical Manufacturers Association, only 3 out of 150 
sites required sole payment from general revenues because the parties 
involved either abandoned the site or were bankrupt.
  The premise behind the initial creation of the Superfund program was 
to facilitate a rapid cleanup of hazardous waste sites nationwide, with 
the responsible parties largely funding the site cleanup. This is a 
relatively simple and logical concept known as the ``polluter pays'' 
principle.
  Secondly, the EPA has admitted that the Superfund program is drawing 
to a close. Under such conditions, there is no compelling reason to 
reinstate a tax to fund a program which is not only flawed, but is 
being phased out.
  I ask my colleagues to heed the advise of numerous business and 
taxpayer organizations that oppose the reinstatement of the superfund 
tax in the absence of overall reform. I ask unanimous consent that the 
letters from the following organizations be printed in the Record:
  U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, The Business 
Roundtable, American Insurance Association, and Americans for Tax 
Reform.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Americans For Tax Reform,

                                 Washington, DC, October 28, 1999.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman: I am writing to support your publicly-stated 
     opposition to the imposition of any new taxes related to 
     potential Superfund reform legislation pending in the House 
     of Representatives. At a time when the non-Social Security 
     budget surplus is projected to grow as high as $1 trillion, 
     Congress should not be raising taxes to pay for more 
     government spending.
       Furthermore, the Corporate Environmental Income Tax (CEIT) 
     that expired in 1995 is a direct tax on corporate income. 
     Thus, if any one of the 209 of Members of the House 
     Republican Conference who signed the Americans for Tax Reform 
     pledge not to raise new personal or corporate income taxes 
     were to vote for them, they would be in direct violation of 
     their signed pledge.
       The House of Representatives has correctly rejected 
     President Clinton's proposal for new taxes on at least three 
     different occasions, most frequently by passing the Sense of 
     Congress that Congress should not raise taxes to pay for more 
     government spending. We hope that this steadfast opposition 
     to any new tax increases continues in the debate over reform 
     of the Superfund program.

[[Page 29139]]

       In summary, no new taxes means no new taxes, and we support 
     your position not to raise any taxes to pay for more 
     spending.
           Sincerely yours,
     Grover G. Norquist.
                                  ____



                                      The Business Roundtable,

                                 Washington, DC, October 19, 1999.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: The Business Roundtable is opposed to 
     renewal of the Superfund taxes for purposes of raising 
     revenue to meet budgetary targets. By law the Superfund Trust 
     Fund was intended to be dedicated to cleaning up sties on the 
     National Priorities List (NPL) and not for other budgetary 
     purposes. The Superfund is funded both by Superfund taxes, 
     but also from recovery of cleanup costs from responsible 
     parties. Members of The Business Roundtable fall 
     significantly in both categories.
       We strongly believe that the taxes, which expired in 1995, 
     should not be renewed for the following reasons:
       1. The Superfund Trust Fund has an estimated surplus of 
     $1.5 billion. In addition, both the House and Senate 
     appropriations committees have allotted $700 million in 
     General Revenues to supplement funding for the Superfund 
     program through fiscal year 2000. Under our analysis, we 
     estimate Superfund will have sufficient funding through the 
     year 2002 without renewal of the taxes.
       2. Under the Superfund law's liability scheme, responsible 
     parties largely fund site cleanup regardless of the 
     imposition of taxes. The preponderance of funding for 
     Superfund is driven by the law's liability scheme, not from 
     taxes. Most ``deep pocket,'' responsible parties contribute 
     well in excess of their actual fair share of responsibility. 
     Where EPA spends money from the Trust Fund for cleanup, these 
     expenditures are also in large measure recovered from 
     responsible parties.
       3. The Business Roundtable continues to support the 
     principle that Superfund taxes be tied to comprehensive 
     Superfund reform, including Natural Resource Damages. Both 
     the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the 
     House Commerce Committee have reported reform bills. 
     ``Regular order'' would suggest that any future federal 
     funding of superfund be tied to an assessment of the impact 
     of these reforms on the future of the program. Taxes should 
     not be renewed absent comprehensive reform, and the current 
     bills need to be evaluated against this criterion. In 
     particular we would note that at this point the legislation 
     is silent on Natural Resource Damages, which we believe must 
     be reformed.
       4. Finally, both House and Senate Appropriations for EPA 
     include directives for a study of the costs to cleanup the 
     remaining sites on the NPL and bring the Superfund program to 
     successful closure. We support such an analysis to determine 
     what the actual cost estimates are for Superfund. Under an 
     earlier Roundtable analysis we concluded that it would be 
     feasible to finance the current program at a rate of about 20 
     to 30 new sites per year (historical average) with an 
     endowment representing approximately four years worth of 
     funding (historical tax rates). There is no compelling reason 
     to reinstate the taxes at their full rate for five years to 
     fund a program which is phasing down. Nor should funding be 
     renewed absent completion of the analysis directed by both 
     House and Senate committees.
       We urge you to resist any efforts to reinstate Superfund 
     taxes for budgetary purposes, absent the Congressionally 
     directed evaluation of future program costs and reform 
     legislation, which includes Natural Resource Damages.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Robert N. Burt,
         Chairman, The Business Roundtable Environmental Task 
           Force, Chairman and CEO, FMC Corporation.
                                  ____

                                   American Insurance Association.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard A. Gephardt,
     Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker, Mr. Leader, Mr. Gephardt, and Mr. 
     Daschle: In recent days proposals have been made to reinstate 
     the expired Superfund taxes to provide revenue offsets for 
     non-Superfund spending--such as the tax extenders bill now 
     under consideration--without enacting meaningful Superfund 
     reform. In addition, as this session of Congress draws to a 
     close, there may be separate attempts to attach to unrelated 
     legislation Superfund liability carveouts that shift cleanup 
     costs to parties who remain liable at Superfund sites. We are 
     writing to express our continued strong opposition to both of 
     these proposals.
       No Superfund Taxes Without Meaningful Superfund Reform.
       Reinstatement of the expired Superfund taxes prior to 
     enactment of meaningful Superfund reform would effectively 
     prevent legislative reform of the Superfund program. That's 
     because under the ``pay-go'' rules of the Federal budget 
     laws, any Superfund reauthorization bill that includes 
     mandatory spending provisions must also include provisions to 
     reinstate the expired Superfund taxes or provide equivalent 
     offsetting revenues ``within the four corners of the bill'' 
     to keep it deficit neutral. Thus, if the Superfund taxes were 
     to be enacted prior to consideration of a Superfund reform 
     bill, Superfund reform could not be enacted without finding a 
     new source of revenue, essentially an impossible task.
       The taxes should not be prematurely reinstated, especially 
     now that legislative reform of the Superfund program is 
     within our reach. On August 5th the House Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee voted 69-2 to report H.R. 1300, the 
     Recycle America's Land Act, introduced by Subcommittee 
     Chairman Sherry Boehlert. That bill now has some 138 
     cosponsors, divided nearly equally between Democrats and 
     Republicans. The House Commerce Committee is expected to mark 
     up a similar bill, Mr. Greenwood's H.R. 2580, in the next few 
     days.
       In the meantime, the Superfund program does not need 
     reinstatement of the taxes to continue operating at full 
     speed. The current surplus in the Superfund Trust Fund, 
     combined with continued appropriations at the most recent 
     level, mean the program will be fully funded through at least 
     FY 2002. In fact, even with enactment of legislative reform, 
     reinstatement of the taxes at the full levels that existed 
     prior to their expiration in 1995 is not necessary. As the 
     Boehlert bill, H.R. 1300, recognizes, any new funding for 
     Superfund should be carefully tailored to reflect the 
     declining needs of the cleanup program, which EPA has 
     acknowledged is winding down.
       No Cost-shifting for Liability Exemptions.
       We are also concerned that there may be attempts this year 
     (just as there were last year) to provide liability relief 
     for certain parties by inserting amendments into 
     appropriations bills or other legislation. While we do not 
     oppose properly-crafted liability exemptions for small 
     business, municipalities, recyclers, or others, we do oppose 
     exemptions that shift their shares of cleanup costs to the 
     remaining Superfund parties. Under the Boehlert bill, H.R. 
     1300, these costs would be part of the orphan share paid by 
     the Trust Fund. This is the original purpose for which 
     Congress created the Trust Fund.
       There is certainly no justification for shifting these 
     orphan shares to the other parties. In fact, in recent years 
     even EPA has consigned much more of these orphan shares to 
     the Trust Fund. Shifting costs to other parties is not only 
     unfair, it is one of the main causes of litigation and the 
     attendant cleanup delay at Superfund sites.
       In sum, we urge you to oppose reinstatement of the expired 
     Superfund taxes without enactment of meaningful Superfund 
     reform. We also urge you to oppose Superfund liability 
     exemptions which shift cleanup costs to other liable parties.
       If we can provide assistance or further information on 
     these or other related matters, please do not hesitate to 
     call on us.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Robert E. Vagley,
     President.
                                  ____

                                         U.S. Chamber of Commerce,


                                 American Petroleum Institute,

                                                  October 8, 1999.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard A. Gephardt,
     House Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker, Senator Lott, Mr. Gephardt, and Senator 
     Daschle: We are writing to express our concern about possible 
     efforts to reinstate the expired Superfund taxes. Proposals 
     to reinstate the taxes solely as a means of raising revenue 
     without enacting comprehensive reform of the Superfund 
     program are very disturbing to us. Raising taxes on industry 
     runs directly counter to congressional efforts to reduce 
     taxes. Furthermore, the Superfund taxes do not need to be 
     reinstated to keep the program going. Under the most recent 
     appropriations and funding mechanisms, the trust fund will 
     remain solvent for many years as the program begins to wind 
     down. Even by EPA's own admission the Superfund program is 
     drawing to a close.
       The Superfund program was created to address a broad 
     problem--paying for the cleanup of ``orphan'' waste disposal 
     sites (those that were either abandoned or whose owners were 
     bankrupt). A wide range of individuals, businesses and 
     government entities have contributed to Superfund sites, 
     therefore general revenues should pay for the program's 
     administrative costs and the clean-up of sites where the 
     responsible parties cannot be found.
       In 1995, the Superfund taxes expired. EPA officials claim 
     that using general revenues rather than industry-specific 
     taxes to pay for Superfund would ``constitute paying for 
     polluters' clean-ups on the `backs' of the American 
     taxpayers.'' That is simply not true.

[[Page 29140]]

     Private sector responsible parties (the so-called 
     ``polluters'') have always paid the majority of cleanup costs 
     associated with the program. In addition, all responsible 
     parties continue to pay their share of Superfund clean-up 
     costs, even though the dedicated taxes have expired. Under 
     CERCLA's strict joint and several liability standard, persons 
     identified as contributing wastes to a Superfund site are 
     paying their share (in addition to the shares of other 
     contributors) of the clean-up costs.
       Even without industry tax revenues, Superfund will have 
     sufficient funding from general revenues, fines, penalties, 
     and profits on investments to support the program into Fiscal 
     Year 2002. For fiscal year 2000, the Appropriations 
     Committees have chosen to fund between $700 and $725 million 
     of the Superfund program from general revenues. In fact, 
     Congress can fund the entire program from general revenues, 
     according to the General Accounting Office and the 
     Congressional Budget Office.
       Simply stated the Superfund taxes should not be 
     reinstated--instead, general revenues should continue to be 
     used to pay for the program. Reinstating industry-specific 
     taxes is not consistent with Congress' intent for the 
     program, that is, whenever possible, polluters should pay for 
     the costs of cleaning up the sites they helped contaminate. 
     The debate over Superfund should not be about reinstating the 
     taxes. It should be about winding down the program as it 
     completes its original mission and devolving the day-to-day 
     operation of the program to the states.
           Sincerely,
     Red Cavaney,
       American Petroleum Institute.
     Thomas J. Donahue,
       Chamber of Commerce of the US.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, now is not the time to consider tax 
increases to pay for government spending, especially at the same time 
we are experiencing a non-Social Security surplus, projected to grow as 
high as $1 trillion over 10 years, and at a time when American citizens 
are paying taxes at the highest peacetime rate in history.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________