Memorial Day recess. And with good cause, because when we go back home, Mayors, business people, gas station owners, people all over this country are going to be asking us: What are you doing about Superfund reform? We will be able to hold our heads high and say we are moving forward with meaningful, specifically targeted Superfund reform.

But I must confess some disappointment. We belatedly received the Administration's position paper last night, testimony from Administrator Browner, with whom I have worked so closely over the years. You know, it really is a little bit unfair to the Committee to get at the last minute the statement, but I understand there are complications in delivering testimony to the Hill. Disappointed in the sense that we have worked closely, we have worked long, we have worked hard. We repeatedly have heard from Mr. Borski, from Administrator Browner, from others last year that we were this close and I am talking about millimeters apart in real terms, and yet nothing happened. Then, today, we will hear Ms. Browner's testimony and it is not as positive as I would like. And that disappoints me too and it surprises me.

It surprises me in view of the fact that yesterday the President of the United States in Atlanta challenged America to come forward, challenged America's corporations to come forward and said: Help us redevelop our inner cities. Help us redevelop those areas where jobs are needed most. And let me tell you, we accepted that challenge in this committee on a bipartisan basis long before it was issued. We are trying to do precisely that. That is why it is so important that we have the Superfund reform legislation with the brownfields section that we have in there. That is why we have such strong support from our Nation's Mayors.

I have accepted the challenge of the Vice President of the United States, long before it was issued, to address the legitimate concern about urban sprawl, about the flee of jobs and businesses from our inner cities where the jobs are needed most, out to the green fields and development chaos out there. That is why we need this specific, this targeted Superfund reform. So we have worked long and hard to get there today.

I am very proud of the fact that this is not a partisan effort. I stand second to none in being proud of my affiliation with my party, just as Mr. Borski and my colleagues on the Democrat side are very proud of their affiliation with their party. But the point is public policy comes first and we have to be responsible and we are being responsible on a bipartisan basis. I would point out: We have equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats cosponsoring this. This is not weighted to one side or another. Every time a new Republican comes on, a new Democrat comes on. Every time a new Democrat comes on, a new Republican comes on.

Twelve members, Democrats, on this committee, proudly identify with this legislation. They have been part of the process, as has the Black Caucus, as has the New Democrats, as has the Blue Dogs, as has the Tuesday Group, as has every single faction that we could deal with. We have reached out; we have embraced them. We have said: Come, let us reason together. And you have that product before you today: H.R. 1300. I couldn't be prouder of it.

I have just come from a press conference with our Nation's Mayors. Mayor Morial of New Orleans; Mayor Turner of Dayton, Ohio; Mayor Marshall of Macon, Georgia. They all stood up there_and said how strongly they feel in support of this legislation. They pointed out that just this week they have sent a letter to the President, signed by people like Mayor Daley of Chicago and other very prominent national Democrats, supporting this measure.

So we are very encouraged as we move forward and we want from the Administration-and I hope we will get from the Administrator of EPA today-an expression of the right attitude, of how we can work together to fashion something that is desperately needed. Let me tell you, Madam Administrator, I give great credit to the Administration on what it has done administratively to improve this program. You deserve our praise. You deserve a pat on the back for what you have done administratively. But I will tell you something. That is not enough. We want to codify what you have done. We want to put it in hard and fast legislation for all to see so that the legacy that you will leave will be implemented and somebody will resist the temptation in the future to undo the good that has been done.

So we are proud to acknowledge where you do good work and we say that we want to do good work together in going forward. And, with that, I am proud to leave this microphone and turn it over to the distinguished Ranking Member from the City of Brotherly Love, Mr. Borski.

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to first commend you for your leadership on this Superfund issue and all environmental issues. You have been a true environmentalist and a true leader for this Congress. I appreciate very much also today the opportunity you have given our guests to present their views. I am delighted that Ms. Browner is here for the EPA and the environmental community will have a say as well as other guests and I think that that is crucial if we are ever going to try to complete this work, this very difficult job that we have.

I think it is important for us to listen to the people who have experience in the field, find out what their problems may be with legislation, and, perhaps, find a way that we can complete the circle, get down what is doable, and get a bill to the President's desk that we can all be proud of.

Mr. Chairman, too often the success of the Superfund program is lost in partisan rhetoric. Too often we hear that Superfund has cleaned up only a handful of sites nationwide. Well, thanks to the hard work of Administrator Browner and her leadership, I am here to state that the Superfund program today is no longer the Superfund program of the early 1990's. Today, over 90 percent of the sites on the National Priority List are either undergoing cleanup construction or have construction underway. Of the 1386 Superfund sites, 599 have had all cleanup construction completion. An additional 464 sites have cleanup construction underway, shovels in the ground. An additional 208 sites have had or are undergoing other cleanup activities which proceed to a permanent solution. Having cleanup completed or underway at 1248 sites out of 1386 is quite a handful.

Mr. Chairman, look at how far we have come with the current Superfund program in place. With so few sites remaining to enter the program, now is not the time to reverse course and cause unwarranted and unnecessary confusion and delays in cleanup, as well as an increase, rather than a decrease, in the frequency of litigation. While I am not saying that the current Superfund program is by any means perfect, it is working. Most stakeholders are comfortable with the predictability of the current system. Our task, Mr. Chairman, is to find those quick fixes agreed upon by all various stakeholders which we can accomplish without turning the Superfund program on its head.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of today's witnesses. We can learn much from the experience of the Administration, our locally elected leaders, and from representatives of the environmental and business community. And, of course, any Superfund discussion will concern both the successes and failures of the program. Fortunately in the current environment, the successes outnumber the failures. I hope that this subcommittee can build upon these successes and look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to that goal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Borski. Now here we have got an unusual situation-well, it is not all that unusual for Washington, D.C. The Administrator has a heavy schedule and the next panel of the Nation's Mayors have a heavy schedule. They have transportation commitments. And so, therefore, we are going to defer any further statements until after the Mayors' testimony and then all my colleagues will be given an opportunity to have any statement they might wish to have for the record. And, with that, we will go directly to the Administrator. It is a pleasure to welcome you back here.

Ms. BROWNER. Thank you.

Mr. BOEHLERT. As an aside, let me offer my condolences for the poor record of the Baltimore Orioles, but

Ms. BROWNER. What about the Marlins?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Administrator, welcome.

TESTIMONY OF CAROL M. BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C. Ms. BROWNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the opportunity to once again appear before this subcommittee and to work with you and Congressman Borski as we look at how best to construct legislation that will answer the needs of the American people, protect their health, protect their communities, and allow this Administration to build on its incredibly successful-and I appreciate your recognition of our successful record in reforming, through administrative changes, the day-to-day operation of the Superfund program. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Borski, I want to thank your staffs for the work that we have been able to do together in the years past as we have looked at this program, as we have looked at how to manage this program better.

I also, Mr. Chairman, want to say to you that the President's, the Vice President's efforts to cleanup and redevelop our cities-which I really, quite frankly, think is unparalleled and second-to-none.

We created the brownfields program five years ago with support from Congress, but not assistance from Congress. We did it in our base budget. We did it without legislation. We are working at 250 sites today. We are leveraging $1 billion in investments. We are out there doing the work that is necessary to help our cities grow, to strengthen our cities, to strengthen their economies. And there is nothing in the concerns which we raised about this legislation that undermines that commitment in the leadership that the President and the Vice President have provided for our cities.

The bill, Mr. Chairman, which you have introduced, we do believe represents a good faith effort to address what we all recognize to be some of the ongoing issues within Superfund. Some of those things which, quite frankly, despite all of efforts bipartisan efforts; public-private efforts; Federal, State, local efforts to address through administrative reforms can't quite get to where we need them to be, given some current constraints within the law.

If your bill were merely a codification of our administrative reforms and sought to address those half dozen issues which you and I agree on, which you, Mr. Borski, and I agree on need some additional attention, we would join hand-in-hand with you, we would fight each and every day to get this to the President so he could sign a new Superfund brownfields bill.

However, I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect and I was told recently there is no such thing as constructive criticism in this town, but I am going to give it a shot-there are some issues, perhaps you did not intend the consequences, but they raise real concerns in our minds. And I think that part of the problem may be that this program has evolved dramatically over the last six years. The Superfund program we manage today—and I think you recognize this is a fundamentally different program than 8, 9, 10, 15 years ago. That is why we have had the successes that we have had. That is why we have had so many sites completed.

My concerns are that your proposal fixes problems that perhaps no longer exist. They were part of the old program; they are not part of today's program. I am also concerned that it may, again, unintentionally, but, nevertheless, break some things that are actually working pretty well. And, finally—and I don't believe you personally intended this but it does create exemptions for some very large responsible parties, Fortune 500 companies, who had full knowledge of what they were doing and full knowledge of the content of their waste. And the effect of that is the cost to cleanup those sites is transferred to the American people and I don't think that is what you intended.

If I might, Mr. Chairman, just briefly mention a few of our concerns. There are not many, but I want to just flag a few. The first goes to a provision in your proposal which we believe would require EPA, prior to sitting down on a voluntary basis with parties to resolve who pays what, to file, prior to an allocation discussion, a lawsuit in Federal court. We do not think that is in anyone's interest. And if I might, I would like to show you a chart of how the program actually works today. It used to work that way. It doesn't work that way today.

[Chart.]

We now, on a voluntary basis, are entering into almost 60 percent site settlements. All of the parties come around the table like this and we all agree on how to proceed. No lawsuit. No United States versus. People work together, an agreement is reached, and that is ultimately recorded in a court. But there is no knock, knock, the government is here with a lawsuit. There are some instances where that is not doable and then we do file that lawsuit. But, as you can see, in the vast majority of instances, we don't begin the process with a lawsuit, nor do we ever file a lawsuit.

Under your bill, Mr. Chairman-and I can cite you the provision-we would be required, before having an allocation discussion, to file a lawsuit. I cannot believe that is what you intended. I cannot believe that is in the interests of the 214 sites. Those 214 site settlements represents hundreds, if not thousands, of people, where these issues were resolved outside of an adversarial setting, outside of the Federal courts. Why do we want to burden the judges with all of these things we are doing without them?

The second issue that I want to flag, Mr. Chairman, is the way in which I think, again, inadvertently, your proposal, your bill, may contribute to delay in cleanups. The way you have structured the allocation process, lots of parties which we all agree should not be part of Superfund, should have never heard the word Superfund, are going to hear. And I know that is not what you mean.

[Chart.]

I might show you an example of a site that we are keenly aware of. This is what is referred to as the Barbara Williams site. Ms. Williams is someone we don't think should have been affected by Superfund. We have asked Congress to work with us, draw a bright line in the statute. If you are a small business, if you sent garbage, like the stuff you and I put out every Monday evening for the garbage company to pick up, you should never hear the word Superfund. I think there is not a person up here who doesn't agree with that. We have worked hard within the current law to protect those small parties, but we cannot do it without a fix in the law in the way that we all agree it needs to be done.

Now, at Keystone, which is a landfill, EPA pursued 11 large contributors, large companies, who brought waste to that site. It was our position that those 11 should bear the lion's share, a fair share, to deal with the problems at this site. Those 11 turned aroundnot EPA-those 11 turned around and they sued 168 to ask those 168 to contribute to the cost. The 168 turned around and sued 589, which is where Barbara Williams is. Under the current law, we didn't even pursue anybody past the top 11. Other parties pursued it. We say, draw a bright line in there and literally hundreds of those, by an Act of Congress, will never hear about Superfund again.

Mr. Chairman, the way you have structured your allocation process, all of those parties have to give us the records so we can figure out their share. If you want them out, don't harass them, don't ask them for their records. Let it be dealt with in the way we are dealing with it today. Let us just take these people out. Let us make sure they are not having to turn things over. Let us draw a bright line in the statute. Small business municipal waste, homeowners municipal waste, they are out. Not companies who went into the