HR-1264-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Daniel Meuser (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would eliminate the Superfund chemical excise taxes currently imposed on three specific chemicals: lead oxide ($8.28 per ton), antimony ($8.90 per ton), and sulfuric acid ($0.52 per ton). These chemicals are key inputs in the manufacture of lead-acid batteries. Under current law, these taxes apply through December 31, 2031, and revenue collected is deposited into the Superfund, which pays for the cleanup of contaminated sites across the country.
Who benefits
U.S. manufacturers of lead-acid batteries, who would face lower input costs. Domestic battery producers competing against imported batteries (which also currently face the tax). Automakers and other industries that rely on lead-acid batteries. Consumers who may see modest price reductions on batteries used in vehicles, backup power systems, and industrial equipment. Battery recyclers who process lead oxide and sulfuric acid. U.S. mining and chemical producers of these substances, who may see increased demand.
Who is hurt
The Superfund trust fund would receive less revenue, potentially reducing funds available for contaminated site cleanup. Communities near Superfund sites — particularly low-income and minority communities that are disproportionately located near such sites — could be indirectly affected if cleanup timelines slow. Taxpayers generally, if Superfund shortfalls are made up through general appropriations. Competing energy storage technologies (e.g., lithium-ion battery manufacturers) that do not benefit from this targeted tax reduction.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that lead-acid batteries are a critical domestic manufacturing sector and that taxing their key chemical inputs puts U.S. producers at a competitive disadvantage relative to foreign manufacturers. They contend that the excise taxes raise production costs, which may reduce domestic battery output and employment, and that the USA Batteries Act would strengthen domestic supply chains for a product essential to vehicles, grid storage, and defense applications.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that lead oxide, antimony, and sulfuric acid are precisely the kinds of hazardous chemicals the Superfund tax was designed to address, given that lead-acid battery production and disposal are significant sources of environmental contamination. They contend that eliminating these taxes reduces the "polluter pays" funding mechanism for Superfund cleanup, shifting remediation costs onto the public while providing a targeted financial benefit to a specific industry.
Constitutional context
The Taxing and Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) grants Congress broad authority to impose and repeal excise taxes, including the Superfund chemical excise taxes at issue here. The Origination Clause (Art. I, §7, cl. 1) requires revenue bills to originate in the House; this bill was introduced in the House and referred to the Ways and Means Committee, consistent with that requirement. No significant constitutional tension is present.
Checks and balances
Congress holds authority to repeal the tax; the Executive Branch (EPA and Treasury) administers Superfund funding and collection; any revenue shortfall in the Superfund trust fund would require Congress to appropriate replacement funds, preserving legislative control over remediation spending.
Historical precedent
The Superfund chemical excise taxes were originally enacted in 1980 under CERCLA, allowed to lapse in 1995, and reinstated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 through 2031; targeted exemptions for specific chemicals have been debated but not previously enacted for these three substances.