private sector is the dominant investor and the pivotal actor in determining how successful we, as a nation, will be in recycling brownfields. It also explains the particular priority we place on ensuring that any legislation include liability protections for innocent third parties. However, conversely, we also know that a market economy, fueled by liability reforms, doesn't respond fully to the problem either. There are many types of brownfields in all circumstances and locations. For these reasons, we also know that public investment is crucial in defining our success in recycling these sites. Again, Mr. Chairman, your legislation accounts for these realities by providing resources directly to communities to help us assess and clean up these sites, providing us with added resources and capacities to partner with the private sector. Perspectives on the Legislation Mr. Chairman, finally, we want to amplify further some of our views on specific provisions of the legislation before this Committee. We have described throughout this testimony why this legislation deserves Congressional support. The following further describes some of the priority issues contained in H.R. 1300, which explains why the mayors support this legislation. First, we want to reemphasize the liability reforms provided in your legislation, an area that was just discussed in our statement. These provisions address a number of circumstances where cities and other public agencies unfairly find themselves subject potentially to Superfund's strict liability standards. These provisions make important changes to relieve cities and other local governments of liability exposure in their ownership or management of brownfield properties. The legislation anticipates the many circumstances affecting local governments in their operations and activities and rightly provides innocent party relief, protecting local government functions. The provisions account for our economic development activities and how cities and their agencies take title to properties. Local government are protected when acquiring properties under condemnation to protect public health and safety or when settling tax disputes. We have considerable exposure in managing the public's assets, such as rights-of-way and easements. Your legislation deals with these complex local matters, respecting how cities and counties conduct their activities. Other liability provisions provide relief to innocent purchasers, both public and private parties, who are seeking to cleanup and redevelop of brownfields. The legislation also sets forth clear standards for establishing how such innocent parties are exempt from Superfund's liability regime. H.R. 1300 authorizes funding for both assessment efforts and local cleanup programs, providing criteria to help U.S. EPA determine how to provide these funds in support of local programs. We are pleased that the bill does not limit future federal funding for either purpose, providing Congressional appropriators with flexibility in future years to increase commitments to these activities. We are pleased that the legislation provides some resources to help states further strengthen their voluntary cleanup programs. We hope that states will use these funds to place some priority, where needed, on efforts to bolster their states programs in support of brownfields cleanups. Considering the many thousands of such sites all across the country, we would certainly encourage the Committee to explore how these funds could help state programs, particularly those focused largely on NPL-caliber sites, to address brownfields more responsively. We are also pleased that this legislation clarifies the balance between state and federal program authority, providing more certainty for the private sector and local officials about the state's authority to make final decisions affecting brownfields. We need to concentrate U.S. EPA's efforts on sites where the level of contamination rises to a federal interest. Without this certainty on state authority, we can't hope ever to provide the necessary assurances sought by private investors in brownfield sites, let alone secure final decisions on the hundreds of thousands of brownfields sites we are seeking to clean up and redevelop. In addition to these brownfields-related provisions, we also wanted to underscore our support for liability reforms that limit municipal liability at Superfund sites where municipal solid waste was disposed. We support the provisions you have provided to limit the liability of cities and counties at such sites and offer more certainty to these governments on their liability costs. We do not believe it was congressional intent to have municipal solid waste and municipal sewage sludge considered as a hazardous waste under CERCLA. Various studies have documented that municipal solid waste has been found to contain less than one-half of one- percent (.5%) toxic materials. We therefore support the provisions within H.R. 1300 that exempt generators and transporters of MSW from liability and limits liability for municipal owners and operators of co-disposal landfills. We also support provisions in H.R. 1300 that extend the Superfund taxes as a part of this reform package. Meaningful reform is dependent on a reliable revenue stream to ensure that we put former industrial sites back to work for America and its communities. Closing Comments Mr. Chairman, we want to express again our thanks to you and Members of this Committee for holding this hearing today and your continuing efforts to move this important legislation forward in the 106th Congress. The nation's mayors believe that the time has come for bipartisan Congressional action on brownfields and selected Superfund reforms. In moving your H.R. 1300 forward, you can count on the continuing support of the nation's mayors in this regard. On behalf of The U.S. Conference of Mayors, we appreciate this opportunity to share the view of the nation's mayors on these important issues. |