Volume 144, No. 123 covering the 2nd Session of the 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SUPERFUND RECYCLING EQUITY ACT” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S10416-S10417 on Sept. 16, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SUPERFUND RECYCLING EQUITY ACT
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, over the past three decades, concern for our environment and natural resources has grown--as has the desire to recycle and reuse. You may be surprised to learn that one major environmental statue actually creates an impediment to recycling. Superfund has created this impediment, although unintended by the law's authors.
Because of the harm that is being done to the recycling effort by the unintended consequence of law, the distinguished Minority Leader, Mr. Daschle, and I introduced The Superfund Recycling Equity Act (S. 2180). This bill removes Superfund's recycling impediments and increases America's recycling rates.
We had one and only one purpose in introducing the Superfund Recycling Equity Act--to remove from the liability loop those who collect and ship recyclables to a third party site. The bill is not intended to plow new Superfund ground, nor is it intended to revamp existing Superfund law. That task is appropriately left to comprehensive reform, a goal that I hope is achievable in the 106th Congress.
While the bill proposes to amend Superfund, Mr. President, it is really a recycling bill. Recycling is not disposal and shipping for recycling is not arranging for disposal--it is a relatively simple clarification, but one that is necessary to maintain a successful recycling effort nationwide. Without this clarification, America will continue to fall short of its recycling goal.
S. 2180 was negotiated in 1993 between representatives of the industry that recycles traditional materials--paper, glass, plastic, metals, textiles and rubber--and representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice, and the national environmental community. Similar language has been included in virtually every comprehensive Superfund bill since 1994. In fact, the original agreement, upon which the bill is based, has remained intact for five years. With over 40 Senate cosponsors, support for the bill has been both extensive and bi-partisan. The companion House bill has almost 300 co-sponsors.
Mr. President, since Senator Daschle and I introduced S. 2180, some have argued that we should not ``piecemeal'' Superfund. They argue that every part of Superfund should be held together tightly, until a comprehensive approach to reauthorization is found.
I generally agree that keeping popular, non-controversial provisions in an omnibus bill makes the more controversial provisions easier to swallow. And given the broad-based support for the recycling piece across both parties, some think it should be held as a ``sweetener'' for some of the more difficult issues. Superfund's five-year history suggests, however, that the recycling provisions--as sweet as they are-- have done little, if anything, to help move a comprehensive Superfund bill forward. Rather, ``sweeteners'' like brownfields and municipal liability are what keep all parties at the table.
Holding the recyclers hostage to a comprehensive bill has not helped reform Superfund, and continuing to hold them hostage will not ensure action in the future. What it does ensure is that recycling continues to be impeded and fails to attain our nation's goals.
Mr. President, this recycling fix is minuscule compared to the overwhelming stakeholder needs regarding Superfund in general, but so significant for the recycling industry itself. It is easy to see why this bill has achieved such widespread bi-partisan support among our colleagues.
S. 2180 address only one Superfund issue--the unintended consequence of law that holds recyclers responsible for the actions of those who purchase their goods.
Therefore, S. 2180 does not address the very contentious and important issues of cleanup standards or natural resource damages.
It does not deal with orphan shares or municipal liability. The goal of this bill is to remove the liability facing recyclers, not to establish who should be responsible for those shares if the unintended liability is removed.
It does not deal with municipal liability specifically, but if municipalities ship materials for recycling, they would be treated the same as any other recycler. Thus, municipalities are provided some relief under S. 2180 for recycling transactions.
It does not deal with owner/operator liability because such liability was intended by Superfund. Any changes in owner/operator liability should be considered within the context of comprehensive Superfund reform.
Likewise, issues of relief for generators who ship for disposal, rather than for recycling, are not addressed by S. 2180. Waste disposal--indeed proper, environmentally sound waste disposal--is a basic tenet of Superfund. Reforms should be considered within the context of comprehensive Superfund revisions.
Senator Daschle and I have heard from various parties who want to add minor provisions outside the scope of the bill. Although many have presented interesting and often compelling arguments, I find that none of these parties has been able to demonstrate the broad base of support that has made the Superfund Recycling Equity Act so unique. No group has been able to demonstrate the support of the broad-based, truly non-
partisan group that has long recognized the need for recycling reform. I will continue to ask that any party wishing to enlarge the narrow focus of S. 2180 show support on both sides of the aisle, as well as from the Administration and the environmental community.
Mr. President, much time, energy and expertise went into crafting an agreement where few thought it was possible. That agreement has been maintained through three separate Congresses where all sorts of attempts to modify it have failed. Congress should accept this delicately crafted product.
S. 2180 shows Congress' commitment to protect and increase recycling.
S. 2180 repeats what we all know and support--that continued and expanded recycling is a national goal.
S. 2180 removes impediments to achieving this goal, impediments Congress never intended to occur.
Mr. President, the 40+ Senators who have already co-sponsored this bill recognize the need to amend Superfund for the very important purpose of increasing recycling in the public interest. Let's act this year.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up