PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 29, 2014
Superfund Polluter Pays Restoration Act of 2014 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) reinstate the Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate beginning 60 days after enactment of this Act; (2) increase such rate from 9.7 cents to 15.8 cents per barrel of crude oil; (3) adjust for inflation in taxable years beginning after 2014 the $3.5 billion Superfund threshold after which no tax is imposed; (4) reinstate and increase the rates of tax on taxable chemicals; (5) modify the definition of "crude oil" to include any bitumen or bituminous mixture, any oil derived from such mixture (including oil derived from tar sands), and any oil derived form kerogen-bearing sources (including oil derived from oil shale); and (6) allow the use of the Superfund for environmental remediation without further appropriation.
People & committees
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5053)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2679 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2679 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2679 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2679 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.