specific, more targeted Superfund reform and, in most instances, have moved in your direction. Now, it seems to me, instead of this far apart, we are this far apart. And that really disturbs and I wonder about that characterization. Ms. BROWNER. Well, Mr. Chairman, you know, to use an example would be we were there on groundwater last year. You and I shook hands. We were there. We are not now. It is different. I am sorry it is different. Mr. BOEHLERT. But we left permanence in the statute. I would point that out. Ms. BROWNER. Well, but it is not Mr. BOEHLERT. We accommodated your request. Ms. BROWNER. With all due respect, uncontaminated groundwater-the agreement that you, Mr. Borski, and I reached last year, and it was a heartfelt agreement, I believe. I think you recognized the importance of protecting groundwater that may become drinking water-is not embodied in this bill. It is not. Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, I said—and I am guilty of doing what I said I wouldn't do and having this a dialogue between a couple of old friends, so I will go to Mr. Oberstar because I am certain he will bring a new perspective to this issue. The Chair recognizes the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Administrator, for a spirited, informed, and precise defense of the Administration's action, of EPA's conduct on Superfund, and the principles which we stand on this issue. It is refreshing to have a person of your stature. Ms. BROWNER. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. Your position comes so well-informed, so precise in response to the questions. You are very specific about interpretations. When you say, why the word changes and why this shift from "all" to "any" and "necessary" to "unnecessary" and you can't get answers or at least answers that don't explain much, you know, I have been around the legislative process 36 years and those are not accidents. There are very few unintended consequences in the legislative process. They are readily fixed when they are unintended. But I know that whole careers have been built on a change here or there. A word has put a whole family through college. [Laughter.] And when you turn to, Madam-notwithstanding differences of volume-little just four words like that, that is a volume in itself. Ms. BROWNER. Correct. Mr. OBERSTAR. I know. I have been around this. I have watched the Clean Water Act, over many years of evolution. But there is either a lack of communication or a change of position on either or both sides. Chairman Boehlert believes there are only a few objections and now just recently he characterized the difference as "that much," hands spread wide apart, rather than millimeters apart. It doesn't seem to me that these are just little changes. So what are these few changes? What are the just the broadthe categories of change or categories where you feel change is necessary for the Administration to give its support to the bill? Ms. BROWNER. I think there are one of two ways that we could proceed. One is to take the brownfields bill, those things we agree on-and there are those things-and pass it. That would do a lot to address small business, prospective purchasers, innocent landowners, contiguous landowners, and brownfields. Those five things. Reinstate the fees. We could do that. We all agree on those. You used a kind word-spirited discussion, it is true that we all agree on those. We could do that. And that would be my preference. Another option-and this is not my preference, but I respect that there are many involved in this would be to try and do as we did last year and go through this section by section and see if we can write a 200-page bill that we all agree on. Given where this bill starts, there are four significant areas where we are not close, but I am not adverse to the possibility that we may be, through discussion, able to come close. I will say this, Congressman Oberstar, it is the same issues that we couldn't get to last year. It is the same set of issues that keep coming back that we are unable to bridge the gap on and, you know, sometimes we are closer and sometimes we are less close. That is affecting the issues that we all agree on, so why don't we just pass the things we agree on? Mr. OBERSTAR. I agree with that. I think there are more than just those five that you have cited. Ms. BROWNER. That we agree on? Mr. OBERSTAR. If there were only five, it would be worth doing. But I think there are many, many more issues than that and subsets of issues. I mean, we went through all of that. I know Mr. Borski and Mr. Boehlert and you spent an enormous amount of time in the last Congress trying to resolve it and we didn't get there. So why don't we just my suggestion-just take up what we can agree on and pass it? Brownfields, largely derived from the bill from the last Congress, the pending bill of the chairman, with a few changes here and there, is one the President can sign? Ms. BROWNER. Yes. Yes. Mr. OBERSTAR. Will sign? MS. BROWNER. Yes. Absolutely. He would love to sign it. Ms. BROWNER. Yes. Mr. OBERSTAR. That's my position. Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Ms. BROWNER. Thank you. Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Bateman. Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Administrator, we have used the term small business a number of times today, both from up here and you from the witness table. Would you furnish the committee with what you believe to be the appropriate definition of small business in the context in which it would appear or how they would be dealt with in this bill? Small business means nothing to me Ms. BROWNER. Yes. Mr. BATEMAN. -until you start talking to me about how many people, how many dollars, or how are you going to quantify what is small and what isn't. Ms. BROWNER. We would be happy-you are right. There are a lot of definitions of small business that exist in Federal law and, in fact, in our discussions last year, we looked to some of those to offer some guidance. But the Administration, for example, on the small business exemption for garbage, 100 employees is the position that we have taken. Mr. BATEMAN. I don't want you to do it orally with the staff whispering in your ear. Ms. BROWNER. OK. Mr. BATEMAN. I want it in writing so that we will have it in draft and as near tablets of stone so we know what we are and are not dealing with when we approach this from any particular perspective or any area of regulatory or administrative involvement. [The information follows:] RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIVE BATEMMAN p.40 and 41 The Administration has reviewed H.R.1300. Unfortunately, the bill shares many of the problems inherent in prior comprehensive Superfund bills. While our differences with the bill have narrowed, the remaining differences remain fundamental and we continue to strongly oppose H.R.1300. The bill weakens the current statutory framework upon which EPA bases the selection of cleanup remedies, provides overly broad liability exemptions to parties that should contribute to the cost of cleanup, increases litigation and transaction costs by imposing a mandatory allocation process at sites, and limits federal authority to protect public health and the environment from threats posed by toxic waste sites. You requested we provide the legislative changes to H.R. 1300 that the Administration could support. Many legislative provisions that the Administration could support as a replacement for the remedy, allocation and liability, and voluntary cleanup provisions in H.R.1300 are contained within H.R.1750, the "Community Revitalization and Brownfield Cleanup Act of 1999" and S.1105, the "Superfund Litigation Reduction and Brownfield Cleanup Act of 1999". In addition, S. 1105 contains a number of provisions related to small business liability that the Administration could support, which you also requested. The Administration strongly supports H.R. 1750 and S. 1105. Both bills contain responsible provisions that encourage cleanup and development by providing appropriate liability protection to prospective purchasers and contiguous property owners and clarifying the liability protection for innocent landowners. In addition, H.R. 1750 appropriately addresses state voluntary cleanup programs and S.1105 provides responsible liability reforms that could be used by small businesses and municipalities. Mr. BATEMAN. The other thing I would like would also be something done for the record. You and the Chairman and Mr. Borski and staff refer to hours and hours and hours you have spent with one another in negotiating this and having discussions on that. Obviously all of us aren't privy to those discussions, can't be privy to those discussions, and frankly it is wasting a good deal of our time today to have you come to have you talk about these discussions, each of you characterizing them a different way. We have the bipartisan bill. I would love and very much appreciate it if you would submit to me, if not the full committee, a marked up version of that legislation indicating all the changes and the rationale for what changes should be made so that we can look it and people who aren't in 18 hours or 20 hours or 100 hours of negotiations would have a much better feel of where we are coming from. I want to know how much of this difference is real and how much of it is rhetorical or if any of it is political. But I want to get Ms. BROWNER. We would be happy to do that for you. Mr. BATEMAN. That would be very satisfying to this member. Thank you. Ms. BROWNER. Thank you. Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Baird. Mr. BAIRD. Madam Administrator, thank you much for not only your testimony, but the work you have done to try to improve how the Superfund program functions. I would like to just ask a couple of questions, particularly relating to recycling. Washington State, as you may know, has been on the forefront of recycling efforts, particularly in the areas of steel recycling and other activities. So this question relates to efforts to address Superfund recycling issues. Particularly when we are discussing suppliers of virgin materials used as manufacturing feed stocks, they are not subject to Superfund liability in regard to a contaminated site. But recyclers, however, who supply their commodities as competitive feed stocks are subject to Superfund liability which raises the question: Does the Administration remain supportive of language that would address this competitive disadvantage between recyclers and virgin material suppliers? Ms. BROWNER. Yes, and I think, as you are aware, there was a bill last year. Was it S.2180? There was language in that bill designed to address that issue. We were supportive. Unfortunately, that bill was modified in the final days, which led us to oppose it. It was not that language that we opposed; it was other language that was added. Yes, we continue to support that. Mr. BAIRD. OK. Ms. BROWNER. I want to be careful here. There was specific language in that bill which we supported. Mr. BAIRD. Right. Ms. BROWNER. Were that language, identical, to show up somewhere else, we would continue to support it. Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate that distinction and understand. Historically, the Administration, including EPA, the Department of Justice, and CEQ have opposed relief from reliability and recycling provisions for materials containing PCBs at concentrations greater than 50 parts per million, which is the current Toxic Con |