Since its creation in 1980, the Superfund program has overcome a number of obstacles. It survived embarrassing political scandals in its first few years. It endured a failure to reauthorize the underlying statute in 1985, a lapse that led to widespread disruptions at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and set the program back significantly. It has persevered in the face of attacks from many sides. Some have complained that the remedies selected are unnecessarily expensive, while others have claimed that cleanups are inadequate to protect nearby communities and natural resources. Some have complained that the liability scheme is too draconian and unfair, while others have accused the Agency of handing out sweetheart deals. And the program has continued to address contaminated sites, despite the failure of recent attempts to reauthorize and revise the statute.

In 1990, Congress passed a four-year, straight-line extension of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) without any real discussion. Two major legislative accomplishments—the Clean Air Act amendments and the Oil Pollution Act—dominated the environmental agenda that year and left no appetite to take on complicated, highly charged issues raised by the multibillion dollar federal cleanup effort. There was no desire to engage in a bruising fight like the first reauthorization process that eventually resulted in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), or to risk derailing the program for a second time. The debate was postponed.