ministration, to provide that type of immediate relief that the Administrator admits can only be had by fixing the law. So if that is the intention towards a narrower bill or the provisions that are within H.R. 1300, that is something that the NFIB looks forward to working with the subcommittee on.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Sherwood.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you very much, Chairman Boehlert. I look at H.R. 1300 as a rare opportunity for me to do the right thing for everybody I represent-my environmental friends and my business friends. And that is what good legislation is all about. I am a little concerned. I would like to find today that the that redefines service station dealers a little bit because, Mr. Diver, I am afraid if we are not careful, that will get defined too narrowly someday to help out people-businesses such as yours. I see that as a little pitfall. And I wanted to address a couple of remarks to

you.

You folks have been in the Chevrolet business about seven years longer than the Sherwoods, so we have been fighting the same problems for a long time, and I took a trip, I believe, with your dad a few years ago. But this issue-you are trying to do the right thing. You are sending to a recycler, and it still comes back to bite you; and I would like to ask if you were not able to defend the amounts, because as I run my pencil here a little bit, that is a hundred barrels of oil a year for 15 years. What were they—they obviously were not recycling much. They were dumping it all.

I mean, it seems to me like you sent it to a recycler; if it was recycled, you could not have possibly had those kind of gallonages (sic). I mean you those kind of gallonages in, but they could not have possibly been dumped. Was there any, was there any forum to express that information?

Mr. DIVER. Before I answer the question, if I could make one comment, I would like to agree with your description of your district back home, as you made earlier, having lived in Tunkanek for two years.

Mr. SHERWOOD. I understand.

Mr. DIVER. Was there a forum? We twice, as they shared a little bit of data each time, would take the data they have and run our numbers. We went through our historical records, calculating several different methods-by estimates of how many oil changes we were doing a day, by looking at our records, and the costing of the oil, so we could figure out how much oil that was. We calculated every which way we could.

By our worst-case estimates, our liability is four times greater than the amount of total waste oil that we could have generated. OK, that seems to be totally outweighed by a few scraps of paper and the recollection. And there was-you threw it at the third party administrators and they came back and said, no. And the description, as a layperson, was, to me, throw out everything you know about due process and what is fair in testimony, because this legislation and this type of law has its own balance-has its own. scale. And, therefore, everything we did, while it was analytical and objective, was totally outweighed by the testimony of the whole.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Because my quick running a pencil up here, that was exactly my opinion. I did not see how that could be true. But I am very happy today to have testimony by the National Automobile Dealers Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses because between the two of those small groups of those groups, they represent more small business people, more employment and by consequence more working families than most organizations that it could have testified in front of us here today, and I thought that was very significant. I thank you very much for your participation.

Mr. DIVER. Thank you.

Mr. BOEHLERT. And I would also like to point out the Friends of the Earth represents a lot of small businesses and interested people, and it has always been a pleasure for me to work cooperatively with you. And I think we are talking about nuances here as the exchange between the Administrator and the Chair indicated earlier. And so we are going to continue to work with you, and thank you very much. Gentlemen, thank all of your for your valuable input. You are considered as resources to this subcommittee, as we are trying to do what is right for America, and I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Mr. DIVER. Thank you.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Our next and final panel today, panel four, consists of three representatives. Will they make their way?

From the National Governors' Association, Mr. Tom Curtis.

From the City of Rockford, Illinois, Ronald Schultz, who is the legal director; and from the National Association of Realtors, Hal Maxfield. He is from Mansfield, Ohio. He is with the Mansfield Real Estate Company.

From the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, Mr. Barry Trilling, from Pittsburgh, PA.

And from the National Association of County and City Health Officials, Tom Milne, Executive Director, here in Washington, D.C.

It is a pleasure to welcome all of you. Let me state at the outset that your statements will appear in the record at this juncture in their entirety. The Chair would appreciate it if you could try to summarize your statement. And the Chair will be indulgent, as the Chair always is, because we consider this important business, and so we want to hear what you have to say.

Let us go in the order of introduction. Mr. Curtis, I believe your are first.

TESTIMONY OF TOM CURTIS, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES GROUP, NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION; RONALD N. SCHULTZ, LEGAL DIRECTOR, CITY OF ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS; HAL MAXFIELD, HAL MAXFIELD REAL ESTATE COMPANY, MANSFIELD, OHIO; BARRY J. TRILLING, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, AND THOMAS L. MILNE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AND CITY HEALTH OFFICIALS.

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Curtis, and I am pleased to be able to make

Mr. BOEHLERT. Tom, would you pull that up closer up to you? And let me say the Governors have been very helpful, and I appre

ciate that.

Mr. CURTIS. Well, thank you, sir. I am happy to be able to make a brief statement this afternoon on behalf of NGA.

First, I would like to reiterate the Governors' strong commitment to protecting public health and the environment. I know you know that. As the Governors know, there is no constituency anywhere in this country for being soft on pollution, for protecting or hiding contaminated sites, or for being weak on cleaning up those sites and getting them back into a productive use. So the Governors do not stand second to anyone in terms of their strong commitment to the goals that I know you share.

They do have a strong interest in making a few changes to the Superfund program and believe that a number of changes are needed to improve the program's ability to cleanup the Nation's worst hazardous waste sites quickly and efficiently. And, Mr. Boehlert, we commend you for making an excellent start at those changes. I know Mr. Borski is not here at the moment. I would say that although we have not had the chance to read his bill, we look forward to reading it and would be happy to make any comments to him in addition on his bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT. So, too, do I.

Mr. CURTIS. The Governors are committed to doing everything within their power to assisting members on both sides of the aisle at developing a successful bill. We hope to work with all of you across the aisle again to develop a final bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support and that the President can sign this year.

Because the States have not yet completed a comprehensive review of the bill of your bill, Mr. Chairman, I would like to limit my remarks this afternoon to two key issues in your bill: the brownfields issue and the Governors' right of concurrence with new additions to the national priorities list. We believe that both of those changes are critical and they work together to make a more streamlined, efficient program.

Clearly, brownfields revitalization is critical to the successful redevelopment and reuse of many contaminated former sites. In considering how best to restore brownfields to productive use, please remember the importance of state voluntary cleanup programs. States are responsible for cleanup at tens of thousands of sites that are not on the National Priorities List. In each of the past five years, States have completed an average of about almost 1,500 brownfields sites. It is important that Federal legislation support and encourage these successful programs by providing the clear incentives and flexibilities that States need to continue these efforts. There is no question that voluntary cleanup programs and brownfields redevelopment are currently hindered by the pervasive fear of Federal liability under the CERCLA. Many potential developers of brownfields sites have been deterred because even if a State is completely satisfied that its cleanup standards have been met and even if the site is not on the NPL, there is a potential for EPA to take enforcement against the cooperating party under the CERCLA liability scheme.

While the language in your bill, Mr. Chairman, improves current law in this respect, we believe your important provisions could be strengthened and clarified. Your bill only precludes enforcement at a brownfields site where cleanup is being conducted or is completed. This language may leave innocent landowners who are not required to take or complete action under many State laws vulnerable to State enforcement. While your bill offers a defense against liability for innocent landowners, such landowners, innocent landowners, could still find themselves in court incurring substantial legal fees even if they have complied with state law.

In addition, the exceptions to enforcement in your bill may let EPA take an enforcement action in inappropriate situations. We believe that the States should have an adequate opportunity to go to a site and take their own appropriate action or to cure any defect that EPA may see in the State's response at a given site before EPA would step in and take enforcement action even under a reopener, as defined in your bill.

A better approach, we believe, and what the Governors strongly recommend, would be to ensure that at non-NPL sites, a release of liability under State cleanup laws that are protective of human health and the environment would constitute by operation of law a release from Federal liability.

In addition, we believe CERCLA should be amended to give credit in the form of a legal release to those who have cleaned a site to protection standards in accordance with the State voluntary cleanup program that is protective of human health and the environment. These changes would greatly encourage voluntary cleanups and, thus, increase the number of cleanups completed.

Another provision that we believe is very important concerns the concurrence of the Governor of a State in which a site is located before a site could be added to the NPL. We believe that this provision is vital. There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years about the future of the Superfund program and whether Congress ought to legislate a ramping down of the program. We believe that with State programs having grown much more mature than was the case in the early days of the Superfund program, there will be a natural process of relying more and more on States to do most of the cleanups. Because States are currently overseeing most cleanups, listing a site on the NPL when the State is prepared to apply its own programs and authorities is not only wasteful of Federal resources, it is very often counterproductive, resulting in increased delay and confusion and greater costs.

To avoid this, Governors should be given the statutory right to concur with the listing of any new NPL sites in their State. In the event that EPA discovers an imminent and substantial threat to human health and the environment, ofcourse, it could continue to use its emergency removal authority.

It is currently EPA policy, I would note, to seek the Governor's concurrence before listing a site in his state, and we simply ask that you codify this practice and mandate as a matter of law that EPA obtain the Governor's concurrence.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, again the Nation's governors appreciate your very hard work in advancing your proposal. We look forward to working with you and with members on both sides of the

aisle. I hope that all members will roll up their sleeves in the spirit of genuine compromise and pass a bill that the President can sign this year.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and I want to thank the National Governors' organization for being so helpful and so free to share counsel with us. A number of the governors are very close personal friends. One of my dearest friends is Tom Ridge, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and my_own_governor, George Pataki. I work very closely with him, and Don Sunquist down in Tennessee. I mean, there are whole lot of them. George down in Austin, so the Governors' Association is a valuable resource that we should constantly look to for advice and counsel because they are there. They are dealing with these problems every single day, and they canwe can learn from their experience.

Mr. Schultz.

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to address your committee on the critical issue of recycling America's urban land.

My name is Ron Schultz. I am legal director for the City of Rockford. Our Mayor, Charles Box, sends his regards, but he was unable to attend today. Mayor Box co-chairs the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Committee on Brownfields. Mr. Box fully supports the simplification of Superfund, represented by H.R. 1300 and believes that the brownfields funding contained in the bill will be a productive investment in America's cities.

The Rockford community is just completing a decade-long Superfund experience. In January, the City of Rockford entered a voluntary settlement with the Department of Justice and the State of Illinois, whereby over $17 million was agreed to be paid by the city and over 130 property owners for past and future response costs. We believe that thissettlement was unique in that a municipality took the lead in negotiating the settlement and promoting an equitable allocation of costs. We were able to negotiate protection from Superfund liability for future owners and lenders. The complete Rockford experience has been documented by Peggy Morrissette of the Manufacturer's Alliance in a case study that I would like to submit for the record.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you. Rockford is the second largest City in Illinois. We have a population of about 140,000, and we are located just northwest of Chicago. Industry Week last year named us as one of the top 25 manufacturing centers in the country. We have over 1,000 small manufacturing firms operating within the city. The problem with our manufacturers is that they have used a variety of solvents over the years in the metalworking industry. These solvents sometimes were routinely dumped on the ground. And with our sandy soil, they reached and contaminated an aquifer in the city.

Superfund worked very well when some of these contaminants began showing up in the drinking water of 500 private homes just outside the city limits. The EPA stepped in to protect public health and connected over 500 homes to our public water supply. These homes were then annexed to the city. That was the good news.