profit-making business of hauling waste. Not those large companies and I won't say any names, but everyone knows who I am talking about. There are two very large ones out there-not those companies who knew what they were getting into. But the homeowners. The small businesses.

Unfortunately, your bill drags these people back in. I don't think that is what you intended, but I have to tell you that is our reading of it. And, secondly, Mr. Chairman, your bill creates a loophole that lets the large waste hauler out of the picture. They knew what they were doing. They should contribute, not the American taxpayer, to cleaning up this problem. They are doing it at sites today. There is no reason they shouldn't continue to be involved. They knew; they had full knowledge; they were in a profit-making business of hauling garbage.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of what could well be benign word changes; a word here, a word there. The word “all” becomes "any." "Unnecessary" gets added. We have asked your staff to help us understand the problem you are seeking to address with all of these word changes. In some instances, they have been able to help us understand; in others, quite frankly, we continue not to understand.

We do believe that these changes will create uncertainty in the management of the program. If there is a public policy to be served by these changes, help us understand it and we will support it if we agree. But you are taking a law that has been on the books for 15 years and is perhaps one of the most litigated laws in the country and when you change it, you are going to create a whole other round of litigation and, with it, a whole other round of delays. So we would simply ask you to help us understand why "all" becomes "any," "necessary" "unnecessary," and the list goes on.

The final concern I will raise is the issue of groundwater and this is an issue you and I have discussed before. We do believe it is important to preserve uncontaminated groundwater. And, obviously, there were negotiations last year. The members of this committee are familiar with those negotiations. I think it is not fair when everyone sits at a table and says, I will agree to this, but only when I see the whole package, to then hold them to that at a later time. I am not here today asking you to assume a position that you had last year. I respect that that was part of a package that we were trying to work through which, unfortunately, we were not able to. But I would ask you to work with us to ensure that uncontaminated groundwater, which may become a drinking water supply does not, inadvertently, become contaminated because we failed to take those steps, which are technically, feasibly available to protect that uncontaminated drinking water.

With that, Mr. Chairman, a final suggestion. There are four, five, maybe six things that we all absolutely agree on. There is no disagreement. You know what that list is. I know what that list is. Many members of this subcommittee, many members of the Congress know. We could probably write maybe a 30-page bill. It would probably have no opponents. We could fix the problems for small businesses. We could do what we want to do on brownfields. We could fix innocent landowners. We could fix contiguous property

owners. We could fix prospective purchasers. We could do all of that. We could do it with lightning speed.

Perhaps that is what we should do and avoid the unintended consequences that may come from 160-page bill. Let us take those things we agree on. Let us pass that bill. Let us fix those things which we couldn't fix administratively, which we have admitted have not been things we can address through administrative reforms. Let us answer the needs of those communities and those small businesses and those who want to come to a site, clean it up, and redevelop it. If, then, there are other issues we should continue to debate, then so be it. But why continue to delay the areas where we have absolute agreement? Thank you.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Madam Administrator. I want this to be something more than an exchange of views between two old friends. I will have a couple of observations on your opening statement and then I will defer to my colleagues for the questions. But just let me say a couple of things.

First of all, I want to make it abundantly clear that everything we are doing with H.R. 1300-that has earned broad bipartisan support-operates under the assumption that, first and foremost, we are going to protect human health and the environment.

Now let me make some observations on some of the comments you have made. You said, initially, you had a few concerns. Not many, but a few concerns. And I appreciate that. Which means that we have developed a pretty good bill if you only have a few concerns, not many.

Secondly-I am just looking at my notes. You said a few benign word changes and we can, obviously, work that out with ongoing discussion between the two of us.

MS. BROWNER. Good.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Third, you said you have asked our staff to help you understand what we mean when we say certain things. And I have instructed our staff to ask your staff to help us understand why some opposition to some things that you have strongly supported that have been in bills that the Administration has advanced, that have been in bills that Democrats have strongly sponsored?

I would report that just four months ago in an appearance before the National Association of Manufacturers, when you were asked about your commitment to Superfund reform, you said—and this is a direct quote "We will be back at it. We will be there. We would like to see it go and we continue to want it to go. I think the President would like nothing better than to see one of the final environmental bills that he signs in his eight-year tenure to be Superfund. It is what he spoke of in his first State of the Union address."

And I was there and I was one that stood up and applauded that, as I have frequently stood up and applauded States of the Union addresses when the President has addressed subjects that I think have broad-based support across this Nation and that are not strictly partisan. I stand second to none in my record of working cooperatively with the Administration.

You pointed out some of the good work you are doing and I share that view in terms of administrative reforms. But I would point out that Mr. Fields, one of your great guys, the Assistant Adminis

trator, he agreed with us-and this is a direct quote from him— if we would be advancing the cause if we codified Administration reforms. He said Mr. Fields-quote, "Yes, I do believe that. I do want to say very positively that there are certain reforms we cannot work effectively unless they are codified. We believe things like the future anticipated land use that everybody agrees to, it would really help to have that in law as opposed to just in guidance. The fact that applicable requirements should apply, maybe we should drop the 'relevant and appropriate phrase.' The treatment of hot spots, highly toxic, highly mobile waste, these types of reforms we have implemented. It would really help to have those in laws. And boy do we really want to help. And the Administration strongly stands behind that.”

And then quoting you on exemption from liability-boy do we want to get small businesses out and it is so very important. And you said—and this is a direct quote "The EPA remains committed to working with Congress to enact legislation to remove from Superfund liability small parties that contribute trash and small amounts of hazardous waste to Superfund sites." We couldn't agree

more.

And you talked about brownfields. You took great pains to point out that you are moving forward with brownfields redevelopment and I agree with that and I applaud that. But the fact remainsand these are figures from your agency, not figures I conjured up out of the sky-there are 450,000 at a minimum brownfields across America where people aren't even looking at it because they are afraid of future liability. That is why the Mayors-Democrat after Democrat, Mayors like Daley and Morial and Marshall, you know, all over the country-are coming forward supporting this.

You said that you think this bill is a good faith effort and I thank you for giving us high marks for a good faith effort and I don't take credit exclusively for that because I worked hand-in-glove with Democrats on this thing. This is not my product. This is our product. And I am still looking at the light because I am going to restrict myself to five minutes. But the point is, Madam Administrator, once again, we have got a bill that I think has earned broad bipartisan support. We feel very strongly about that. And we want to work with you.

One of the things you pointed out in your opening statement, you had some questions about the allocation system. And we will work with you. And, as a matter of fact, what we have done is we have avoided prescriptive allocation because you said that you didn't want that. And so we have avoided that and we want to give you some flexibility.

The bottom line is, if our hearts are in the right place, if we have the right attitude, if we avoid partisanship and we concentrate on good public policy, then I think we can achieve what you have previously expressed an interest in achieving and which I certainly want to achieve and that is a bill that will go forward and be deserving of the universal applause from across this Nation, from all sectors, from all parties. With that, my red light is on, so I yield to my colleague, Mr. Borski.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would just be pleased to yield to the Administrator and see if she wants to respond to any of your questions.

Ms. BROWNER. Well, Mr. Chairman, we obviously stand by everything we have said that you quote. I would just simply suggest to you that, in some instances, the quote was preceded by a statement with respect to small businesses, with respect to this or that issue. You know, it strikes me that, as I said, there are a set of issues we all agree on. Brownfields is one. Mr. Borski's bill H.R. 1750 on brownfields-that is it. It is there. It is done. Let us pass it. You know, there are provisions that we have all agreed to and I don't think your bill is that much different on brownfields.

Mr. BOEHLERT. With all due respect, we have not seen Mr. Borski's bill because that was worked in solo, you know, whereas we worked on a bipartisan basis. So I want to stress that.

Ms. BROWNER. It has 135 cosponsors now.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Every single one of them is a Democrat, Madam Administrator. And let me point out, this committee under this chair is not partisan. We are working on a bipartisan basis. Every single one of the 135 sponsors of Mr. Borski's bill, which has not been shared with us, which we have never been consulted on, are Democrats. And I don't fault them for that. And I have said to the Democrats who are on my bill, if you want to support that bill too, I would encourage you.

MS. BROWNER. Well

Mr. BOEHLERT. But the fact of the matter is, we have a 50-50 split. This is a strong bipartisan effort.

Ms. BROWNER. The point that I am trying to make is that, in the case of brownfields, you suggest the Administration has not been willing to support good legislation.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I said didn't recognize good legislation.

Ms. BROWNER. OK. I was simply trying to say to you that it strikes me that there is a bill with a lot of support, Mr. Borski's bill. The Administration supports brownfields. Why don't we pass it? Why don't we just take it and pass it? I mean, that is an example of where it seems to me there is a lot of agreement and we could see this bill passed very, very quickly.

If there are changes in the Superfund law which this Administration, or which I have previously supported, and you now hear us objecting to, please let us know. I do have to say, however, that to suggest that a sentence which says, "The President shall initiate an allocation by filing in the District Court of the United States," is not something we have ever supported. I am on page 115, lines 13 through 20 of the copy of the bill which I have. That is not something the Administration has ever supported and we do it is not simply have concerns with it-we oppose it. We don't think it facilitates the work that needs to go on.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Hey, that-I am encouraged because-and I am not going to take-I am going to give you additional time-I am encouraged by what you are saying because if you want to work on the details of the allocation, we will work with you. You know that. That is our history.

Mr. BORSKI. Madam Administrator, I wanted to speak for a minute. Thank you for your words on our brownfields initiative. I

did want to just reiterate that, that you would support? That is something the President would sign into law?

Ms. BROWNER. Yes, tomorrow.

Mr. BORSKI. You also mentioned liability reform for small busi

nesses.

Ms. BROWNER. Yes.

Mr. BORSKI. That you would support it? So this is not a position of the Administration trying to do nothing.

Ms. BROWNER. No.

Mr. BORSKI. If we can bring to you the areas of agreement that all of us are on, you would be happy to recommend that the President sign it?

Ms. BROWNER. Yes.

Mr. BORSKI. But this bill, you have problems with?

Ms. BROWNER. Absolutely. Yes. That is correct. We have problems with this bill.

Mr. BORSKI. With this bill-and the earlier major criticisms of Superfund where it was a lawyer's dream. Lawyers were making a fortune off of litigation. That has slowed down to the point where we are now getting things accomplished. What would this bill do, in your view, to litigation? Would that alter the whole

MS. BROWNER. It would dramatically increase the number of lawsuits. The section that I just referred to would require in every allocation situation-which would be all situations; that is what we strive for-we would have to file a lawsuit. So, in other words, at these 214 sites representing hundreds of parties, rather than voluntarily working together, a lawsuit would be filed or lawsuits, number one.

Number two, our concern, in addition to more lawsuits, are the delays that come with those lawsuits. It drags things out. It creates an adversarial setting.

Number three, we do believe-and I can refer you to the section. It would be on page 76 of Mr. Boehlert's bill-that there are very, very significant loopholes created for large parties, many of whom have recognized their responsibility at sites. And the costs that they have been willing to bear in cleaning up these sites would be shifted to the American people. And I think the concept which has been embraced that the largest polluters should pay their fair share of the cleanup is eroded through these loopholes. It is a section that gives the appearance of simply saying, if you sent garbage, you are exempt, but the position we have taken in the Administration is if you are a small business and you sent garbage, you should be exempt. If you are a for-hire

Mr. BOEHLERT. Excuse me. Is big business garbage different than small business garbage?

Ms. BROWNER. Yes, it is. Yes, it is.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is interesting.

Ms. BROWNER. I would be happy to explain how.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I would love to hear that explanation. Garbage is garbage.

Ms. BROWNER. Well, I will give you, I mean, one example that is-no, it is not. For example, there is a site right now involving two large companies. They were aware of the fact that their, quote, "paper," was heavily laden with PCBs. They knew that. It was part