[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 105 (Thursday, July 22, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1626-E1627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               INTRODUCING THE LAND RECYCLING ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. JAMES C. GREENWOOD

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 21, 1999

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Land Recycling 
Act of 1999 along with a strong bipartisan group of co-sponsors. The 
Act will remove Federal barriers to the cleanup of brownfields across 
the country. Removing these barriers will spur investors, benefit 
cleanup contractors and provide tools for state and local governments 
to tackle this longstanding problem. These efforts will provide for 
more livable, secure and vibrant neighborhoods. The blight that has 
dominated both urban and rural areas should not continue.
  My bill will bring about aggressive state reclamation and cleanup of 
brownfields--abandoned or underutilized former industrial properties 
where actual or potential environmental contamination hinders 
redevelopment or prevents it altogether. The U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA] estimates that there may be as many as 500,000 
such sites nationwide. In my own congressional district, the southern 
portion of Bucks County is estimated to have 3 square miles of 
abandoned or underutilized industrial property.
  These well-positioned, once-productive industrial real estate sites 
pose continuing risks to human health and the environment, erode state 
and local tax bases, hinder job growth, and allow existing 
infrastructure to go to waste. Moreover, the reluctance to utilize 
brownfields has led developers to bulldoze greenfields, which do not 
pose the risk of liability. Development in these areas contributes to 
suburban sprawl, and eliminates future recreational and agricultural 
uses. The Land Recycling Act will help stop urban erosion, and provide 
incentives to the redevelopment of our cities and towns across the 
country.
  The brownfields problem has many causes. Foremost among them is the 
existing Federal law itself. Under the Superfund law, parties who 
currently own or operate a facility can be held 100 percent liable for 
any cleanup costs regardless of whether they contributed to the 
environmental contamination and regardless of whether they were in any 
way at fault. Because of the potential for this kind of liability, it 
is simply not worth dealing with the environmental exposure as long as 
developers have the alternative of building in rural areas where they 
are not exposed to liability. Owners can't sell and instead simply 
mothball them indefinitely. Clean-up contractors face uncertain 
liability.
  Unrealistic standards and one-size-fits-all remedy selection also 
prevent voluntary actions and leave sites in years of red tape. The 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] poses nearly identical 
concerns. Under section 7003 of that law, for instance, EPA has broad 
authority to order a current owner-operator to address environmental 
contamination, again, regardless of fault.
  Thirty-two states have launched so-called voluntary cleanup programs. 
We must help these programs thrive. Under these initiatives property 
owners comply with state cleanup plans and are then released from 
further environmental liability at the site. The subcommittee has 
received testimony in the past from a variety of states and the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], demonstrating that these state 
voluntary cleanup programs have been responsible for the redevelopment 
of hundreds of brownfields. In the first year the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania enacted its brownfields program, it succeeded in cleaning 
35 sites.

  Although many of these state laws have proven successful, states, 
businesses, and other experts have testified that the possibility of 
continuing Federal liability despite an agreement to limit State 
liability--the so-called dual master problem--seriously diminishes the 
effectiveness of State voluntary cleanup programs. Because redevelopers 
face the potential for cleanup obligations above and beyond what a 
State has decided is appropriate to protect health and the environment, 
they may hesitate to enter into agreements with sellers to purchase 
idle properties. The testimony establishes, in my mind, that if 
brownfields redevelopers could be confident that the cleanup

[[Page E1627]]

agreements entered into with States would not be second-guessed by EPA, 
then they would be far more likely to agree to conduct a cleanup.
  The Land Recycling Act of 1999 is based on the input of all of the 
stakeholders in the brownfields debate--the federal government, states, 
local governments, clean-up contractors, sellers, buyers, developers, 
lenders, environmentalists, community interests, and others--and in 
particular based on my own experiences in my district. Among other 
things, the bill provides ``finality'' for brownfields cleanups done 
pursuant to, and in compliance with, State programs, releasing buyers 
and sellers from liability and litigation under federal law. This 
certainly is number one on the wish list for developers and Rust Belt 
businesses. It will also provide liability protection under federal law 
for a number of nonpolluters, including: innocent landowners, 
prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, and response action 
contractors--thus removing disincentives to cleanup and reuse. This 
legislation will streamline the federal cleanup process and employ 
sound and objective science. Finally, the Land Recycling Act of 1999 
will provide brownfield grants to states, local governments, and Indian 
tribes for the inventory and assessment of brownfield sites and the 
capitalization of revolving loan funds for cleanups.
  I believe these straightforward solutions will provide an aggressive 
antidote to the wasteful burden of brownfields in America and are part 
of the overall set of solutions we must pursue to reform the nation's 
broken hazardous waste laws. I reemphasize this is a bipartisan effort. 
Reform efforts that are strictly Democrat or strictly Republican mean 
the group has a point to make but is not serious about enacting 
legislation in the 106th Congress.
  While I am confident that the Land Recycling Act will go a very long 
way, we in Congress also have a larger task at hand--overhaul of the 
Superfund Program to ensure that we do not perpetuate the brownfields 
problem across the country. The Congress needs to address fairness and 
liability issues for small business recyclers and others. The Land 
Recycling Act of 1999 is only a piece of the puzzle. I look to the 
chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, and the chairman of the 
Finance and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, Mr. Oxley, for continued 
leadership on Superfund reform to address the areas that we can and 
must address. These two chairmen have fought for Superfund reform and 
continue their interest in real solutions. The bill last Congress, H.R. 
3000, The Superfund Reform Act, had 19 Democrat cosponsors and 
represented a strong bipartisan effort. I hope that 1999 offers more 
promise, and that they will again consider including the Land Recycling 
Act as part of their Superfund reform effort.

                          ____________________