Order Code RL31410
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Superfund Taxes or General Revenues:
Future Funding Options for the
Superfund Program
Updated March 7, 2005
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Superfund Taxes or General Revenues:
Future Funding Options for the Superfund Program
Summary
This report discusses the role of dedicated taxes and other sources of revenue
in funding the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund. Congress makes annual
appropriations to the Environmental Protection Agency from this trust fund and from
general revenues for the purpose of responding to hazardous substance spills,
cleaning up former waste disposal sites, and administering the Superfund program.
Three dedicated taxes (on petroleum, chemical feedstocks, and on corporate
income) historically provided the majority of the trust fund’s income. The taxes
expired at the end of 1995, however, and the amount of unobligated money in the
fund gradually dwindled. By the end of FY2003, the fund’s unobligated balance was
zero, down from a high of $3.8 billion in 1996. As this balance declined, controversy
grew over the Bush Administration’s decision not to request reinstatement of the
taxes. For now, the Administration proposes to compensate for the lack of dedicated
tax revenue by increasing the contribution from the general fund of the Treasury. In
his FY2006 budget request, the President proposes to fund virtually the entire
program ($1.215 billion, or 95%, of a total appropriation of $1.279 billion) from
general revenues.
Proponents of reinstating the dedicated taxes contend that the cleanup of
hazardous waste sites and spills should rely on taxes paid by the chemical and
petroleum industries and companies that used the hazardous substances being cleaned
up, not ordinary taxpayers. They refer to this as the “polluter pays” principle. They
also contend that in an era of tight federal budgets, it may be difficult to maintain
spending at needed levels without dedicated taxes. In the 108th Congress, the Senate
rejected efforts to reinstate the Superfund taxes, but similar legislation could be
offered in the 109th Congress.
The Administration has attempted to separate the tax and funding issues. The
President has proposed increases in Superfund appropriations in FY2004, FY2005,
and FY2006 in otherwise tight budgets for domestic programs. Congress cut the
Administration request for FY2005 by about $134 million. Regarding the tax issue,
the President’s FY2006 budget submission is silent.
This report, which will be updated as events warrant, provides background
information on the sources of income to the fund and provides estimates of program
needs through FY2009. Several reports, including one for the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees and reports by the EPA Inspector General, have
concluded that spending has fallen short of the program’s needs.
Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Superfund Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Expiration of the Taxing Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Dwindling Fund Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Superfund’s Future Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Available Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Balance, Start of Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Fines and Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Interest and Profits on Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
General Revenue Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Future Year Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Congressional and Administration Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Administration Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Figures
Figure 1. Hazardous Substance Superfund, Beginning of Year Unobligated
Balance, FY1994-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2. Actual and Requested Appropriations vs. Projected Funding Needs
for Superfund, FY2001-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Tables
Table 1. Superfund: Trust Fund Revenues and General Revenue Contributions,
FY1991-FY1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Superfund Taxes or General Revenues:
Future Funding Options for the
Superfund Program
In February 2002, controversy erupted over the Bush Administration’s decision
not to request renewal of the Superfund taxes in its FY2003 budget submission1 —
a decision repeated in its FY2004, FY2005, and FY2006 submissions. The
Superfund is used to clean up sites contaminated by releases of hazardous substances.
Without dedicated taxes, and with a declining balance in the Hazardous Substance
Superfund Trust Fund, appropriators have been using general revenues for a larger
percentage of cleanup funds. This report offers information on the sources of income
to the fund, and estimates required funding for the Superfund program in FY2006
and subsequent years order to provide background for the discussion of whether
general revenues or dedicated taxes should be used to fund the program in future
years.
Background
The Superfund was established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, P.L. 96-510), and greatly
expanded by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA,
P.L. 99-499). Under the program, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
potentially responsible parties clean up contaminated sites and respond to
emergencies caused by spills of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.2
In a majority of cases, Superfund cleanups are paid for by potentially
responsible parties (PRPs). At a large number of sites, however, either there is no
identifiable or solvent PRP, or there are disputes among the PRPs concerning their
degree of responsibility. In such cases, CERCLA permits EPA to proceed with
cleanup using the fund’s resources. Where possible, the Agency undertakes
enforcement actions to recover the fund’s costs from PRPs at a later date.
Superfund Taxes
The fund has had several sources of revenue over the years, the most important
being dedicated taxes on petroleum, chemical feedstocks, and corporate income. The
1 The Administration did not request renewal of the taxes in its FY2002 budget submission
either, but the issue did not become particularly contentious, in part, perhaps, because the
fund had a larger balance at the time.
2 For more information on the Superfund program, see CRS Report RL31154, Superfund:
A Summary of the Law and CRS Issue Brief IB10114, Brownfields and Superfund in the
108th Congress.
CRS-2
taxes on petroleum (9.7 cents per barrel) and on chemical feedstocks and imported
chemical derivatives (varying amounts, depending on the chemical) were based on
the assumption that many of the hazardous substances to be cleaned up were derived
from these sources (an approach generally referred to as the “polluter pays”
principle). The third tax (referred to as the Corporate Environmental Income Tax),
pegged at 0.12% of corporate income in excess of $2 million, was meant to raise
funds from a wide range of companies that may have used and disposed of hazardous
substances.
Table 1. Superfund: Trust Fund Revenues and General
Revenue Contributions, FY1991-FY1995
Amount
Percent
Source
($ million)
of Total
Trust Fund Revenues
Petroleum Tax
$2,800
25.4
Chemical Feedstocks and Imported Derivatives Tax
1,327
12.1
Corporate Environmental Income Tax
3,121
28.4
Cost Recoveries from PRPs
901
8.2
Fines and Penalties
11
0.1
Interest on Investments
1,003
9.1
Subtotal, Trust Fund Revenues
$9,163
83.2
General Revenues
$1,845
16.8
Source: Funds Management Division, U.S. Treasury Department
Both the Bush Administration and its critics say they support the “polluter pays”
principle, but they mean different things in using the term. When Administration
spokespersons support “polluter pays,” they mean cleanup funded by responsible
parties at sites where such parties have been identified as owners, operators, or
contributors of the waste requiring cleanup. Since more than 70% of the sites on the
National Priorities List are being cleaned up by responsible parties in this manner,
this is a key part of the Superfund program.3
The Administration’s critics use the “polluter pays” term in a broader sense,
however, to mean that the tax money that is used to clean up the other 30% of the
sites should come from industries that profited from the sale or use of the chemicals
3 Then-EPA Administrator Whitman, for example, was reported to support “polluter pays”
in a February 3, 2003, article in Daily Environment Report: “Whitman told reporters the
administration remains committed to the ‘polluter pays concept.’ She noted that more than
70 percent of the sites are being cleaned up by responsible parties. However, in those cases
where responsible parties cannot be identified, or have long since gone out of existence,
appropriated funds will come into play, she said.” Bureau of National Affairs, “Superfund:
Proposed Fiscal 2004 Funding for Program Will Increase by $150 Million, Whitman Says,”
Daily Environment Report, February 3, 2003, p. A-12.
CRS-3
being cleaned up. Thus, they support resumption of the dedicated taxes on petroleum
and chemical feedstocks as well as the Corporate Environmental Income Tax.
Lesser sources of income to the fund have included interest on the fund’s
balance (which is invested in government securities until expended) and cost
recoveries from PRPs and other government agencies. There has also generally been
an annual contribution to the program from general revenues.
Table 1 shows the sources of revenue to the fund over the period 1991-1995
(the last five years before the taxes expired). The three dedicated taxes provided an
average of $1,450 million per year, 65.8% of total revenues during the period. The
taxes generated nearly four times as much as the contribution from general revenues,
which averaged $369 million per year, 16.8% of total Superfund revenues during the
period. The remainder of the fund’s income came from interest on investments ($200
million per year) and cost recoveries ($180 million per year).
Expiration of the Taxing Authority
The taxes that supported the fund expired at the end of 1995. The Republican
leadership, notably the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee during
the 104th through 106th Congresses, opposed reinstating the taxes except as part of a
comprehensive CERCLA reauthorization that would remove or modify Superfund’s
liability provisions.4 No consensus was reached on reauthorization, and the taxes
were not reinstated.
When the taxes expired, the fund had an unobligated balance of nearly $4
billion,5 and, even after expiration of the taxes, money continued to be added to it
from interest payments, cost recoveries, and other sources. Thus, the lapse in taxing
authority initially had little effect on the ability to fund the program. The Clinton
Administration requested reinstatement of the taxes annually in its budget
submission, but no action was taken on the requests and the program continued to be
funded through a combination of the existing unobligated trust fund balance and
general revenues.
In order to make the fund last longer, the contribution of general revenues to the
annual appropriation was increased from $250 million annually in FY1993 to
FY1998, to $634 to $700 million in FY2000 to FY2002. The Administration
requested $700 million from general revenues in FY2003, and $1.1 billion in
FY2004. In FY2005 and FY2006, virtually the entire amount would come from
general revenues.6
4 See, for example, “CBO Reports Trust Fund Can Survive Through 2000 Without
CERCLA Taxes,” Daily Environment Report, July 16, 1996.
5 According to the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Years 1996-2003, the
unobligated balance of the fund peaked at $3.829 billion at the end of FY1996.
6 In FY2005, the entire amount, $1,247.4 billion, did come from general revenues. In the
FY2006 request, $1.215 billion of a total appropriation of $1.279 billion would be from
general revenues.
CRS-4
The Dwindling Fund Balance
In the past three years, attention has been focused on the dwindling amount of
unobligated funds in the Superfund Trust Fund. As shown in Figure 1, at the end
of FY2001, the fund’s unobligated balance had declined to $860 million. The
President’s FY2003 and FY2004 budgets projected further declines, to $427 million
at the end of FY2002, and to $159 million at the end of FY2003.
These numbers were revised in the FY2005 budget submission (and in Figure
1) to reflect actual cost recoveries and other transactions in FY2002 and FY2003.
The new numbers show a balance of $564 million at the end of FY2002 and zero at
the end of FY2003. The elimination of the unobligated fund balance has raised the
question as to what contribution from general revenues will be required in FY2006
and later years, given that the fund will have little or nothing in the way of
unobligated resources.
Superfund’s Future Needs
In order to estimate general revenue requirements for Superfund in 2006 and
later years, it is first necessary to identify future program needs. In July 2001,
Resources for the Future (RFF), as directed by Congress in the FY2000 VA-HUD-
Independent Agencies appropriation, released a comprehensive report to Congress
identifying those needs and projecting future costs for fiscal years 2000-2009. The
study looked at all major elements of the Superfund program, including the removal
program (for emergency and short-term cleanups); the remedial program (long-term
cleanup); site assessment activities; program staff, management, and support costs;
program administration; and Superfund-related work of other programs and agencies.
The authors developed alternative scenarios for estimating the number, type, and cost
of sites likely to be added to the program in coming years. They presented their
results in a 294-page report, with 73 tables and 28 figures.
The report estimated that the Superfund program would need $1,469.1 million
(in 1999 dollars) in FY2006. Adjusting for projected inflation, the program’s needs
in 2006 are $1,690.8 million, according to RFF.7 This was the report’s “base case”
— described as “our best judgement of the future cost of the Superfund program,
given the full body of our research, analyses, and interviews.” The report also
estimated a high and low case, to reflect uncertainties about the factors used in their
cost models.8 The low estimate for 2006, adjusted for inflation, is $1,532.3 million;
the high estimate is $1,828.9 million.9 Adjusted for inflation, funding needs remain
above $1.6 billion annually through FY2009, the last year for which RFF estimated
future costs.10
7 Katherine N. Probst and David M. Konisky, Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost?
(Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 2001), pp. 158, 266. The inflation adjustment
factor is discussed in Appendix F.
8 Ibid., p. 121.
9 Ibid., pp. 266-267.
10 Ibid.
CRS-5
Figure 1. Hazardous Substance Superfund, Beginning of Year Unobligated
Balance, FY1994-FY2004
Source: Budget of the United States Government, Appendix, Fiscal Years 1996-2005.
Available Funds
The amounts available to the program from all sources are estimated in the
Appendix to the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006
(hereafter referred to as the President’s budget request). According to the budget
request, amounts available for Superfund appropriations can be summarized under
six headings: (1) balance, start of year; (2) fines and penalties; (3) corporation income
taxes; (4) recoveries; (5) interest and profits on investments; and (6) interfund
transactions.
One of these categories, corporation income taxes, is one of the dedicated taxes
that expired at the end of 1995, and thus is estimated at zero. Another category,
interfund transactions, represents the contribution from general revenues, which can
be whatever amount Congress establishes. The President’s FY2006 budget requests
$1.215 billion in this category (virtually the entire appropriation). This is in marked
contrast to earlier years: prior to FY2003, the amount requested did not exceed $700
million. There are four remaining sources of funds, which now make relatively
minor contributions to the fund. Each of these will be discussed in turn.
Balance, Start of Year. The President’s budget request estimates that $64
million will be available as an unobligated balance in the Hazardous Substance
CRS-6
Superfund at the end of FY2005. The balance at the start of FY2006 would be
identical. Thus, $64 million is available in this category.
Fines and Penalties. Fines and penalties paid to the Superfund totaled $3
million in FY2004, and are estimated by the President’s budget request at $3 million
in each of FY2005 and FY2006.
Recoveries. Cost recoveries represent payments to the fund from potentially
responsible parties to reimburse the government for cleanup expenditures at sites for
which a private party is legally responsible. Recoveries vary from year to year;
projecting them in advance is difficult, and may have a larger potential margin of
error than some other categories of revenue.
Actual recoveries have been declining in recent years. Over the six-year period
1997-2002, they averaged $272 million per year, but they declined to $147 million
in FY2003 and only $74 million in FY2004. The President’s budget request projects
recoveries at $60 million in each of FY2005 and FY2006, well below the amounts
recovered in recent years.
Interest and Profits on Investments. Like other government trust funds,
the Superfund earns interest on its current balance until the money is actually
expended. Expenditures can lag obligations by several years, so there can be a
substantial difference between the unexpended and unobligated balances in the fund.
The unexpended Superfund balance totaled $2,433 million at the beginning of
FY2005, whereas the unobligated balance was zero. Because of the size of the
unexpended balance, the fund is still earning substantial amounts of interest — $38
million in FY2004. According to the President’s budget request, an estimated $37
million in interest is projected for FY2005, and an estimated $20 million in FY2006.
These projections assume an interest rate that is historically low — less than 2%. If
interest rates are higher than that in FY2005 and FY2006, interest earned on the
unobligated balance might be higher.
Total. Summarizing the above, the total estimated amounts available to the
Hazardous Substance Superfund for FY2006 from sources other than general
revenues are (in millions):
Balance, start of year
$64
Fines and penalties
3
Recoveries
60
Interest
20
Total
$ 147 million
General Revenue Requirement
The President’s FY2006 budget request would provide an appropriation of
$1.279 billion, of which $1.215 billion (95%) is estimated to come from general
revenues. On the expenditure side, the Administration requests a $32 million increase
in program funding, from the $1.247 billion appropriated in FY2005 to $1.279 billion
in FY2006, plus $12 million for “special account interest.” Subtracting the requested
CRS-7
amounts from the anticipated revenue sources described above would leave $71
million in the fund as an unobligated balance at the end of FY2006.
Future Year Funding
In years beyond 2005, Superfund’s needs are projected by RFF to remain just
below the FY2005 level through at least FY2008, with the FY2009 amount dropping
to $1.615 billion (see Figure 2). This implies that the amounts needed from general
revenues (in the absence of Superfund taxes) will be higher than amounts provided
in recent years. There are at least three factors contributing to this increased need.
First, the fund’s unobligated balance, which provided an estimated $564 million
of the program’s revenues in FY2003 and substantially more in earlier years, will be
essentially gone in future years: only $64 million is projected to remain unobligated
at the end of FY2005, and $71 million at the end of FY2006..
Second, the amounts needed for cleanup were projected to increase beginning
in FY2002, as numerous “mega sites”moved beyond the analysis and design phases
and into actual construction of remedies. (Mega sites are sites at which the projected
cleanup cost is $50 million or more. The average cost at mega sites is projected to
be $140 million.) In the RFF analysis, the cost of remedial action was projected to
remain above historic levels through FY2007, and the cost of the Superfund program
as a whole was projected to remain above 2001 levels through at least FY2009.11
Third, appropriations have lagged RFF estimates of program needs by
substantial amounts in FY2001 through FY2005, as shown in Figure 2: for the fiscal
years 2001-2005, the combined lag is estimated at $2.2 billion.
The RFF report was released in the summer of 2001. Since then, delays in
design and remedy selection may have lowered actual funding needs compared to
projections; but the larger point is that a number of mega sites will need to be cleaned
up in the next few years, and this will increase the need for spending.
Already, in FY2002 through FY2004, cleanup has been delayed at numerous
sites because of a lack of funds. According to a report from the EPA Inspector
General (IG), “EPA obligated a total of $320 million” to remedial action construction
activities in FY2002, “a difference of $97 million from the Regions’ total need of
$417 million.” The IG report identified seven sites for which the Regions requested
construction funding but got none, and five other sites that together received only $15
million of the $38 million requested. In addition, the Agency obligated only $43
million of the $60 million requested for Long Term Response Actions at sites where
construction was complete, but a need for continuing treatment activities (most likely
for ground water) remained.12
11 Ibid., pp. 127, 266.
12 Letter of October 25, 2002, from Nikki L. Tinsley, EPA Inspector General, to Senator
James Jeffords, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Senator
Barbara Boxer, Chair, Superfund, Toxics, Risk, and Waste Management Subcommittee, pp.
(continued...)
CRS-8
Figure 2. Actual and Requested Appropriations vs. Projected Funding
Needs for Superfund, FY2001-FY2009
Sources: Actual and requested appropriations, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Years 2002-
2006. Amounts for 2001 through 2005 are actual appropriations. Amount for 2006 represents the
Administration’s request. Projected costs: Resources for the Future, Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost?
In FY2003, the remedial action program was $175 million short of the Regions’
total needs, according to the IG. The IG identified an additional 11 sites that could
not begin construction because of a funding shortfall, and at least 5 other sites that
did not receive their full funding request in that year.13
In FY2004, the numbers grew again. While the Inspector General did not report
on the subject, a survey of EPA staff by the House Energy and Commerce Committee
Democratic staff found a shortfall of $263.1 million.14 EPA challenged some of the
committee data, but confirmed in letters to House and Senate Democrats that it did
not start construction at 19 sites that were ready for construction in FY2004, because
of a lack of funding.15
12 (...continued)
1-3.
13 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Congressional Request on Funding Needs for
Non-Federal Superfund Sites, Report 2004-P-00001, January 7, 2004, pp. 4, 8-9.
14 U.S. House, Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats, “Dramatic Funding
Shortfalls Revealed in Superfund Program,” Press Release, August 16, 2004.
15 See “FY04 Cleanup Delays Renew Democrats’ Criticism of Superfund
(continued...)
CRS-9
Additional amounts could be provided from general revenues. The
Administration notes that it requested increases in funding in both FY2004 and
FY2005, which Congress did not grant. Congress cut the FY2005 request by $134
million. But given the continued high levels of spending needed and the dwindling
amounts available to the fund from sources other than general revenues, it appears
that it will continue to be difficult for Congress to fund all of Superfund’s needs.
General revenue contributions as high as $1.5 billion would be needed to finance
Superfund through the rest of the decade in the continued absence of Superfund
taxes. Whether such historically high levels of general revenues will be available for
the program in coming years, given the expected pressures for increased spending on
defense, homeland security, Medicare, Social Security, transportation, and other
government programs, is an open question.
Congressional and Administration Action
Congressional Action. The level of funding for Superfund and whether to
reinstate the Superfund taxes have generated substantial debate over the last three
years, and may continue to do so in the 109th Congress. There were four recorded
votes on the issues in the 108th Congress. Early in that Congress, Senator Lautenberg
introduced an amendment (S.Amdt. 192) to the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriation bill
(H.J.Res. 2) to increase FY2003 appropriations for Superfund to $1.373 billion, an
increase of $100 million over the President’s request. The amendment was defeated
53-45, on January 23, 2003. On March 25, 2003, Senator Lautenberg offered an
amendment (S.Amdt. 408) to the FY2004 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 23) to
reinstate the Superfund taxes. That amendment also failed, 56-43. A similar
Lautenberg amendment to the FY2005 budget resolution (S.Amdt. 2703 to
S.Con.Res. 95) was defeated on March 11, 2004, on a vote of 52-44.
The House did not vote on whether to reinstate the Superfund taxes, but on July
25, 2003, Representative Markey offered H.Amdt. 345 to the VA-HUD-Independent
Agencies Appropriation bill. The amendment would have added $114.7 million to
the Superfund appropriation for FY2004 (reducing NASA funding by an equal
amount). It was defeated 309-114.
In addition to the amendments, three stand-alone bills were introduced in the
108th Congress. In the House, H.R. 610 (Pallone) would have reinstated the
Superfund taxes as they were in 1995, starting on the day of the bill’s enactment and
ending October 1, 2008.16 Representative Kucinich’s H.R. 3655 would have
extended the taxes through FY2013. In the Senate, Senator Boxer’s S. 173 would
have reinstated the Superfund taxes from the day of the bill’s enactment until January
1, 2014. No action was taken on any of these bills.
15 (...continued)
Budget,”InsideEPA Superfund Report, October 25, 2004. The data in the article were
confirmed by EPA in a personal communication March 3, 2005.
16 The bill would also have reinstated the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax and extended
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund taxes for the same period.
CRS-10
As of early March 2005, only one bill addressing these issues had been
introduced in the 109th Congress. Representative Terry’s H.R. 434 would transfer
$124 million from EPA’s Science and Technology account in FY2005 to fund
additional cleanups, and would authorize additional cleanup funds through 2009 by
limiting authorizations for Science and Technology. The bill would also limit EPA
spending on management and administration of the Superfund to 22% of the total
Superfund appropriation: a September 2004 report by EPA’s Inspector General found
that Superfund administrative costs had increased $36.8 million over the previous
five years (accounting for 25% of total spending), while programmatic costs declined
by about $174 million.17 The bill would also prohibit adding new sites to the
National Priorities List until remedial actions have been completed at all sites
currently on the list.
Administration Position. When asked about the Superfund taxes on
February 25, 2002, both the President and his then-spokesman, Ari Fleischer, stated
that the Administration’s priority was on reforming Superfund’s liability provisions.
At a Senate hearing April 10, 2002, however, Marianne Lamont Horinko, EPA
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, said that the
Administration would reexamine its position on the tax in fiscal 2004,18 which was
generally interpreted as meaning that it would look at the issue when preparing its
budget for FY2004.
The President’s budget request for FY2004 did not ask for the taxes to be
reinstated, but the Administration still appeared to be holding open the possibility of
reinstatement at some future date. Asked at a January 31, 2003 appearance about the
Superfund taxes, then-EPA Administrator Whitman replied that “the Administration
has taken no position on reinstatement of the tax.”19
17 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, OIG Response to Congressional Request on
Superfund Administrative Costs Briefing, Report No. 2004-S-00004, September 15, 2004.
18 “Superfund: Administration Will Consider Reinstating Tax on Industry in 2004, EPA
Official Says,” Daily Environment Report, April 11, 2002, p. A-2.
19 “Superfund: Proposed Fiscal 2004 Funding for Program Will Increase by $150 Million,
Whitman Says,” Daily Environment Report, February 3, 2003, p. A-12.