Several Democratic Senators renewed their call for a federal Superfund tax during today's Environment & Public Works Subcommittee hearing "Oversight Hearing on the Federal Superfund Program's Activities to Protect Public Health."

There were calls to reinstate the Superfund tax because some believe the program is under funded.

FACT: "The Superfund budget is about 50% bigger than the budget for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, which protects the nation's meat, poultry, and egg products," noted Michael Steinberg of the Superfund Settlements Project at today's hearing.

Steinberg also noted that despite rhetoric to the contrary Superfund "has fundamentally achieved its objectives and accordingly has receded in the public focus. Today a general public recognition exists that at most sites, the actions that should be taken are being taken." (LINK)

EPW Ranking Member Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) explained how a reinstatement of a Superfund tax would be ‘patently unfair."

"This tax does not distinguish a polluter from a company that is an environmental steward.  In fact, when applied, this tax unfairly targeted the oil and chemical industries penalizing companies who had no contact with any Superfund site. The tax goes where the money is, NOT where the responsibility lies.  This is not a targeted tax on polluters.  This is an indiscriminate tax on business," Inhofe said.

"Supporters of this tax imply that if we do not reinstate the tax we will not have enough money to clean up sites.  This is not true.  There has NEVER been a correlation between the amount of money raised by the tax and the dollars spent on clean up.  For example, in 1996 the tax fund was at its highest level, yet the amount spent by the Clinton Administration for Superfund clean up was at a 10 year low.  While in 2004, the money spent by the Bush Administration was at a 10 year high, while the fund was at a low point," Inhofe added.

Link to Senator Inhofe's Opening Statement

Link to Hearing Statements

# # #

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT... 

Senator Inhofe: Leader in Appropriations Accountability

By Paul Weyrich

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Link to Column

Washington is famous for constructing acronyms. Many bills passed by Congress are titled with an acronym, public relations language or both. For those of you who may follow such things, there is a fair chance that you never have heard of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) Bill, which is unfortunate because the WRDA Conference Report is about to sail through the Congress but President George W. Bush has said that he would veto it. As much as I have been encouraging the President to veto bills this is not one of them. The President should sign the Bill as reflected by this Conference Report and I will tell you why.

The WRDA Bill would continue to provide a measure of discipline between the authorization and appropriations processes. When Congress was created all bills and conference reports were considered by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In 1816 the Senate established the first eleven standing legislative committees, in 1867 the Appropriations Committee. The House later adopted the same system - standing legislative committees to originate or evaluate legislation, including appropriations authorizations, and the Appropriations Committee actually to appropriate funds to implement authorizations.

This system has worked well. The Senate with legislative jurisdiction, for example, may authorize $ one billion for transportation but if the Appropriations Committee appropriate only $800 million that lesser figure is enacted unless the full Senate increases it on the Floor.

It is a discipline which is necessary if Congress is to display any resemblance of fiscal responsibility. That brings us back to the WRDA Bill. In 1922, the Senate promulgated Rule XVI, which prevents the Appropriations Committee from legislating on appropriations bills. If there is an attempt to legislate an appropriations bill, the measure is subject to a point of order, which means a Senator can object and the language is stricken.

The WRDA Conference Report authorizes water projects by establishing criteria to be considered by the appropriators. Historically, Congress enacted a WRDA bill every two years but is has now been seven years since the last such enactment.

Let us examine the WRDA Bills of 2000 and 2007. WRDA 2000 contained 247 projects at a score of $5.1 billion over 15 years. WRDA 2007 contained 751 projects at a score of $23.2 billion over 15 years. WRDA 2000 contained 39 new project authorizations. WRDA 2007 contained 47 new project authorizations. WRDA 2000 was a one-year bill, just as Congress had passed a one-year bill in 1999. WRDA 2007 now accounts for seven years worth of infrastructure authorizations. WRDA 2000 contained 29 new projects. WRDA 2007 contains an average of seven new projects over 15 years.

The point is that the WRDA Bill, which is an authorization, contains a whole series of strict criteria which the appropriators must consider. Projects must have a favorable report from the Army Corps of Engineers. This is known as the Chief's Report. The Chief's Report demonstrates that a project is:

a) Technically feasible.

b) Economically justified.

c) Environmentally acceptable.

d) Projects must not waive the local cost sharing.

e) A Senator from the State receiving the project must request the project.

70% of the Chief's Reports authorized projects in WRDA 2000 received funding but many received far less than was authorized.

This is the critical matter. Without WRDA, the Appropriation Committee maintains the power to legislate on appropriations measures without almost no restraint. Language in the WRDA Conference Report provides the basis to challenge unauthorized earmarks by simply enforcing Senate rules. This authorization legislation is an important discipline against uncontrolled earmarking.

Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK) is a dynamic leader in supporting the 2007 WRDA Bill, which the Senate passed 81-12, the House 381-40. He wants to preserve the authorization and appropriations system which has worked well since inception. Some conservative and other organizations are against the Conference Report because of its projected expense. President Bush has stated that he would veto the Bill. These and other conservative groups applaud the President. That is most unfortunate. If President Bush cares about how Congress operates, he would not veto the Bill. By vetoing this measure Bush would set a precedent for a disaster in this Congress and in Congresses to come.

Posted by Matt Dempsey 10:40am ET

I am very disappointed that Commissioner McGaffigan is not here with us today.  For more than 10 years, I have appreciated his frank and insightful testimony before this Committee.  Ed and I shared a common goal to transform the Commission into a more effective and disciplined agency and I have had the greatest respect for his tenacious efforts.  The results are a remarkable and an admirable legacy.  The sad thing about this legacy is that Ed is not here to see new reactor licenses get filed and observe the impact of his efforts as the NRC meets this new challenge.  He will be sorely missed. 

Thank you, Senator Carper and Senator Voinovich, for holding this hearing today.  I am a firm believer that constant oversight is critical to ensuring that federal agencies are productive and efficient.  The NRC is a solid example of how oversight by this Committee over the last 10 years transformed the agency from a subjective and unpredictable regulator to a more safety-focused, efficient one.

One key element in that transformation was the reform of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process.  The old process was subjective, inconsistent and bureaucratic.  The reforms put in place in 2000 have established a more safety-focused process that is measurable.  Even the GAO found the process to be logical and well-structured, and that the process causes the industry to constantly improve.  The GAO also found it to be a very open process which provided the public and other stakeholders considerable information on its activities.

The very nature of requests for the so-called “Independent Safety Assessments” implies that the NRC’s oversight is inadequate to ensure safety and is somehow biased.  The NRC was established, by law, as an independent agency.  If the integrity of the agency is in question, then I’m eager to hear the evidence.  If the Reactor Oversight Process is deficient in some way, then I’d also like to know that so it can be remedied.  As I understand it, the NRC is moving to address the few weaknesses highlighted by the GAO.  I look forward to the testimony today on these issues. 

I’m also interested in the GAO’s conclusions about the NRC’s readiness to review new plant applications.  Last week, NRG filed a license application for 2 new plants in Texas .  I hope this is the first of many to come.  However, this surge of applications presents a significant challenge to the NRC’s ability to manage its workload.  In the effort to balance existing responsibilities with new plant licensing reviews, I am concerned that the NRC may not have all the tools in place that it will need.

During its review of Early Site Permits, the NRC was caught flat-footed because it underestimated the number of public comments and was unprepared to manage volume of work.  Similarly, as the agency begins to review license applications, I’m concerned that some important management processes are not in place.   Without clear processes for prioritizing resources and tracking Requests for Additional Information (RAI’s), I am concerned that the agency will soon find itself fully engaged in reviewing multiple applications without having all the necessary tools in place.  I look forward to hearing Chairman Klein’s testimony on how the NRC is addressing these and other issues reported by the GAO.