[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6169]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       SUPERFUND REAUTHORIZATION

  The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the budget that President Obama 
submitted to Congress last week calls for the reinstatement of the 
``polluter pays'' principle for the Superfund program.
  As someone who has been dealing with a Superfund site in my district 
for over 20 years, I am pleased that the President has added his 
important voice to this cause. I have introduced H.R. 564, the 
Superfund Reinvestment Act, which would implement his recommendations. 
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor it.
  The Superfund program was created in 1980 to provide money to clean 
up the Nation's worst hazard sites where the party responsible for 
polluting was out of business or could not be identified. Superfund 
sites contain toxic contaminants that have been detected in drinking 
water wells, creeks and rivers, backyards and playgrounds all across 
America. Indeed, about 1 in 4 Americans lives within 4 miles of a 
Superfund site.
  Communities impacted by these sites can face restrictions on water 
use and recreational activities as well as economic losses as property 
values decline due to contaminated land. In the worst cases, residents 
of the community can face serious health problems such as cardiac 
impact, infertility, low birth rates, birth defects, leukemia, and 
other cancers and respiratory difficulties.
  Approximately 30 percent of these sites are considered ``orphan'' 
sites where a responsible party cannot be found, cannot pay or refuses 
to pay. In these cases, the Superfund trust fund is tapped to help pay 
for the cleanup. That Superfund program has contributed to the cleanup 
of over 1,000 sites across America.
  Before the tax expired in 1995, the money for the Superfund trust 
fund came mainly from taxes on the polluters, themselves--the oil and 
chemical companies--that profited from the sale or use of the chemicals 
being cleaned up. Because Congress in the past has not reauthorized the 
taxes, the rate of cleanup for Superfund sites has declined, and the 
burden for funding the cleanup of these toxic waste sites now falls on 
the shoulders of all tax-paying Americans, not those who were 
responsible for it.
  By 2003, the balance in the Superfund trust fund had dwindled to 
zero, delaying 29 sites around the country. Today, the Superfund relies 
heavily on scarce general fund revenues, increasing the burden on 
American taxpayers at a time when cleanup costs are increasing. The 
lack of funding also reduces the EPA's leverage in forcing companies to 
clean up after their own sites. The delay has resulted in greater 
health risks to people living near Superfund sites. It has resulted in 
increased damage to local communities as sites remain a drain on the 
local tax base, and in the long run, it results in higher ultimate 
cleanup costs.
  One of the sites that has experienced delay due to the EPA's lack of 
funding is the Portland Harbor Superfund site in my district, 
officially a Superfund site in December of 2000 but a source of concern 
for years. The sources of contamination include former and current 
industrial operations and, indeed, the Federal Government, itself, 
because of World War II shipbuilding.
  While a number of potentially responsible parties, such as the Port 
of Portland and the Northwest Natural Gas Company, have stepped forward 
to begin the cleanup process, it is expected that much of the pollution 
at the Portland Harbor site will be unaccounted for. Normally, this 
orphan share would be paid by the Superfund. Since there is no money in 
the fund, the EPA may decide to distribute the liability to those 
already identified responsible parties, significantly increasing their 
cleanup costs and serving as a disincentive for people to come forward 
and help voluntarily. This may be one of the largest and costliest in 
the program's history, but it is but one example around the country.
  Many of the responsible parties are eager to clean up actions on the 
site, but the EPA has not even issued a record of decision to clean it 
up. The EPA tells us this record of decision is about 3 to 5 years 
away, which basically has been the same story for the past 9 years, in 
part, because we don't have the resources. In the meantime, 
contamination is negatively impacting navigation and redevelopment 
activities around the region, not to mention threatening the health and 
safety of those who live around the river.
  Portland Harbor is one of many examples of sites around the country 
that will benefit from reinstating the Superfund taxes. Until it 
expired in 1995, the Superfund tax generated about $1.7 billion a year 
to clean up these hazardous areas.
  I hope that my colleagues will work with me to ensure that the 
polluters, not the general fund taxpayers, clean up our country's most 
hazardous waste sites by cosponsoring the Superfund Reinvestment Act, 
H.R. 564.

                          ____________________