STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX BAUCUS
Superfund Reauthorization
May 25, 1999

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To me, S. 1090 presents both good news and bad news.

On a positive note, the bill drops several very contentious provisions that we were unable to resolve last year. I know how strongly Senator Smith feels about some of these issues.

So we recognize and appreciate the step that you and he have taken. This creates an opportunity for us to find a fresh approach to a bipartisan compromise.

If we are to do that, we also need to address the areas where the bill still needs improvement.

First, there are a number of tough issues in the bill. For example, the relationship between state voluntary cleanups and the Superfund program, which is often referred to as the question of "finality." As we know, state programs vary widely in their effectiveness. That is why I believe that a federal safety net would assure protection of public health and the environment.

But that is an issue, like many others in the bill, that, if we make an earnest, good faith effort, with give and take on both sides, we should be able to resolve.

Second, the fair share allocation system. I agree that we should increase fairness and reduce litigation and other transaction costs. I also agree that orphan share funding is an important way to achieve this goal.

But I have some concerns. One is the cost, especially the cost of reimbursing parties. Another is the potential impact on the pace of cleanups. Finally, like many other issues, the devil is in the details. And I hope this hearing will help answer our questions.

Third, and probably most important. Funding. As we read the bill, it will generate new program costs, such as mandatory allocations, an inventory of separate parcels of land, and a review of all the 3,000 sites in the Superfund data base. These may be good ideas, but they are expensive.

At the same time, the bill reduces authorization levels, sharply. Furthermore, it contains a provision that prevents site cleanup if there is not enough money available to pay companies all of their new orphan shares.

These provisions, in combination, may result not in the "completion" of the Superfund program, as the bill's title suggests, but in a sharp reduction in the pace of cleanups, at the expense of thousands of people living near hazardous waste sites.

I know that is not the Chairman's intent. And I appreciate the Chairman's efforts to get solid data about cleanup costs, something I hope we can begin to resolve with EPA this week.

But, as we go forward, we must be very careful, to assure that this bill provides the funding necessary to get the job done.

I look forward to working with the Chairmen, Administrator Browner, and others to assure this.

That brings me to a final point. Financing the cleanup program.

As I understand it, S. 1090 does not contemplate reinstatement of the Superfund taxes that previously have gone into the Superfund trust fund. Instead, it would fund cleanups almost exclusively out of general revenues.

Some may think that this is a small matter of accounting. I disagree.

Ever since the Superfund program was established, one of its critical features has been the existence of a special trust fund, financed by earmarked taxes.

When this Committee reported the first Superfund bill, back in 1980, we described our main objectives. The first was assuring that responsible parties pay for environmental damage.

We went on, and I quote:

"Second, providing a fund to finance response action where a liable party does not clean up, cannot be found, or cannot pay the costs of cleanup and compensation."

"Third, basing the fund primarily on contributions from those who have been generically associated with such problems in the past and who today profit from products and services associated with such substances."

We reaffirmed this in 1986 and 1990. The fund, and the earmarked taxes, have been an integral part of this cleanup program.

Now, we're considering reauthorizing the Superfund program -- but without the Superfund. This, to my mind, is unwise and unwarranted.

With the budget pressures we face, we have to find a way to pay for this program.

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we can work to resolve our differences over the operation of the program. And, as the process goes on, renew our longstanding commitment to a dedicated trust fund with an assured source of revenue.

I look forward to working cooperatively with my colleagues towards those ends.