In your testimony, you note that small businesses have been dragged into Superfund sites for simply throwing out their household trash. Should we infer from that that NFIB is only seeking liability protections for household trash disposal or is NFIB seeking liability protections for all small businesses? Would you address that, Mr. Sullivan, please.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Certainly. Mr. Chairman, what I was doing in the written statement and also in my oral statement was making the parallel between Barbara Williams, who threw out household garbage, and what is going on in Quincy, Illinois, right now; and that is a vastly larger universe. But the small businesses there the same way Barbara Williams is do not deserve to be in the Superfund system for what they did legally 20 years ago. And that is the purpose of clarifying municipal solid waste.

We would prefer to go further than that and to address the question of whether H.R. 1300 deals with the past Superfund law or the current law? And we would say that for the liability provisions and the small business liability relief, it most certainly addresses the Superfund law now, because if we were to simply sit back or to codify the administrative reforms, then we would not be helping or solving the problem in Quincy, Illinois. It goes beyond that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And that is why I so much appreciate the good work and input that we have had from your organization. And let me stress on a bipartisan basis, and even the Administration agrees, that it is sort of crazy to keep small businesses on the hook in general. And we may have some differences on how best to get small businesses out, but the fact of the matter is we want to get the small guy off the hook. We want to get on with cleaning up our toxic waste sites in a responsible manner. So I appreciate the valuable assistance we have received from the organization you are representing.

Let me ask Mr. Reilly, and this is somewhat of a longer question, but I will try to be explicit. Given your experience with the Superfund program and with working on Superfund reforms and Superfund legislation and it is extensive were you surprised by the Administration's testimony? And let me go beyond that by saying, are you surprised that EPA can no longer support consideration of reasonable costs as a remedy selection balancing factor, a provision that was in the Administration's proposed Superfund bill? Now, this may be unfair to ask you this question, so you may want to be very terse by saying, yes, you were surprised and somewhat disappointed, or you can expand on it if you want to.

Mr. REILLY. Rather than taking on EPA, I would say that in practice, EPA and the regions now when they pick remedies normally follow the current law, which has cost in there. And I think it is very fair to have a reasonable cost test when we are taking a new look and maybe a shorter list of criteria for remedy selection. So I was little disappointed that somehow the impact of those words apparently meant a lot more to the administrator than they did to those sitting on this side of the table.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Just let me say because I do want to stick to the time limit for the Chair as well as everyone else. I do not want to have preferential treatment. But the bottom line is simply this that

we have consciously reached out to one and all-to the environmental community, with whom I proudly identify, to small businesses, to auto dealers, to the corner gas station guy, to anyone and everyone who would express a willingness to work with us. We have worked tirelessly with Mr. Borski and the Minority staff over the years, and with the Administrator herself. Some people may characterize the exchange that the Administrator and I had this morning as an unfriendly exchange. I would not do so at all. I think she is just as committed as I am to improving a program, and we know from our own words that she is requiring legislative action in some areas to do what we want to do. There is not choice, and further that the fact of the matter is that a tax, I think—I am convinced, knowing how this town works-the tax is going to be renewed, as it should be.

The question is it going to be renewed with a reformed program that focuses on cleaning up, or are we going to maintain the status quo, improved though it is over these years, are we going to maintain the status quo and still have too many dollars going into litigation and courtroom battles rather than actually cleaning up Superfund sites.

With that, I am proud to relinquish the microphone to my colleague from Philadelphia, Mr. Borski. And we know we have learned from him that Philadelphia now has unquestionably the best Mayor in history, according to Mr. Borski's interpretation. And I would assume the Mayor is very supportive with Mr. Borski, likewise.

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You can make sure the Mayor hears you say that rather than me, but I appreciate that. Mr. Sullivan, I just wanted to ask you a question. You were here just earlier and you heard what the Administrator had to say. Could-would NFIB support a smaller version that took care of this small business exemption that you are all looking at?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think, Mr. Borski, in answer to your question about reaction to the some of the positive statements that the Administrator has said, I would like to clarify that we do not deny the improvements for small business that have been underway with the administrative reforms. What I tried to bring about in my oral and written statement is that we do not feel as though they go far enough, and because of that, we are strongly supportive of the liability relief provided for in H.R. 1300.

We are pleased with hearing the Administrator say that small businesses are unfairly suffering. We are optimistic we can work through the nuances to get to achievable and immediate liability relief for small business, signed into law this year.

Mr. BORSKI. Yes, I guess my question would be if-with all best intentions H.R. 1300 just cannot get there for whatever reason, would you be supportive of a smaller version that would take care of the small business people? As I heard the Administrator today, it seemed to me that a smaller, narrower version is something that could be accepted. I am just curious if that is acceptable to you as well?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Again, I also tried to be very clear in my written statement and oral statement that we want to work with all Members of Congress, and I probably should have added, with the Ad

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 appreciate 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.