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

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 himif 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.