[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 24851]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        REINSTATEMENT OF THE CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL INCOME TAX

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 2, 2005

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Superfund 
Revenue Reinstatement Act of 2005, a bill to reinstate the corporate 
environmental income tax, which expired in 1995. The bill will provide 
a dedicated stream of revenue for our Nation's communities as they 
struggle to clean up the Nation's dirtiest abandoned hazardous waste 
sites and recapture lost jobs where they are most needed.
  First passed by Congress in 1980, the corporate environmental income 
tax provided a dedicated stream of revenue for the so-called Superfund 
trust fund. In 1995, the last year before this corporate tax expired, 
it raised approximately $700 million. At a rate of 12/100 of one 
percent on corporate profits over $2,000,000, the tax was virtually 
without any real impact on business, but supported worthy and rightful 
public purposes--creating jobs, rebuilding our urban communities, and 
cleaning up a legacy of unfettered industrial activity. The oil 
industry--not one company but the entire industry--paid just $38 
million in 1995. That's about what is earned by the industry in the 
first hour of the first day of the new business year.
  Reinstating the corporate environmental income tax would raise about 
the same amount of revenue as it did in 1995, according to estimates 
made by the Joint Committee on Taxation in 2003. That's a negligible 
burden to provide dedicated funds for restoring superfund sites. But 
those are estimates are a few years old. With corporate profits at 
current levels, the revenue derived could certainly be higher.
  And, where are these superfund sites? In urban areas of course, where 
redevelopment is needed and where jobs are needed. But what's been 
happening? Industry is developing greenfields in the far out suburbs 
because they don't want to touch superfund sites. And hundreds of 
thousands of brown-fields across the nation sit idle instead of being 
returned to productive use. Can we really continue to afford 
leapfrogging existing and valuable infrastructure to build anew?
  That's why the Superfund needs dedicated revenue. In 1995 when the 
tax expired, the Superfund held a significant surplus, so few people 
were concerned. Today, however, as many had predicted, the surplus is 
gone. An empty trust fund, annual budget squabbles, recent budget cuts, 
and larger and more complex site cleanups have hurt the superfund 
program, slowing or delaying cleanups. The lack of dedicated revenue 
for superfund has also put pressure on other parts of the EPA's budget. 
That pressure surely has been felt by the Brownfields program, which is 
our premier program to bring sites back to productive use and hasn't 
yet been fully funded at authorized levels.
  It is all the more distressing that we let the corporate 
environmental income tax lapse 10 years ago--forgoing $7 billion of 
dedicated funding for cleanup and redevelopment.
  That is why it is time to rededicate ourselves to creating jobs, 
rebuilding urban America, and eliminating this core cancer in so many 
of our communities. And isn't it refreshing to advocate for a plan with 
worthy objectives and a method to pay for it!

                          ____________________