[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 22 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1481-S1491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Reid, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Warner, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Specter, Mr. Graham, 
        Mr. Campbell, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Carper, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 350. A bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to promote the cleanup and 
reuse of brownfields, to provide financial assistance for brownfields 
revitalization, to enhance State response programs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Brownfields 
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. Together with 
Chairman Bob Smith, Senators Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer, and other 
members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am 
reintroducing the popular bipartisan legislation that I co-authored in 
the 106th Congress. That bill eventually amassed sixty-six co-sponsors 
and I look forward to the bill enjoying the same strong bipartisan 
support it did last year.
  As the chairman of the Senate Superfund Subcommittee, I have made 
brownfields reform my top environmental priority. As one of six former 
mayors in the Senate, I understand the environmental, economic, and 
social benefits that can be realized in our communities from 
revitalizing brownfields. Estimates show there to be between 450,000 
and 600,000 brownfield sites in the United States. Why do we have so 
many of these abandoned sites? The shift away from an industrialized 
economy, the migration of land use from urban areas to suburban and 
rural areas, and our nation's strict liability contamination statutes 
have all contributed. By enacting this legislation, we can recycle our 
nation's contaminated land, reinvigorate our urban cores, stimulate 
economic development, revitalize blighted communities, abate 
environmental health risks, and reduce the pressure to develop pristine 
land.
  People may legitimately question the necessity of enacting federal 
brownfields legislation. Given the frequent touting of brownfield 
success stories, is federal legislation necessary? The short answer is 
``yes''. While many states have implemented innovative and effective 
brownfield programs, they cannot remove the federal barriers to 
brownfield redevelopment. By providing federal funding, eliminating 
federal liability for developers, and reducing the role of the federal 
government at brownfield sites, we will allow state and local 
governments to improve upon what they are already doing well.
  I would like to briefly describe the highlights of our legislation. 
The bill authorizes $150 million per year to state and local 
governments to perform assessments and cleanup at brownfield sites. In 
addition, that money will allow EPA to issue grants for cleanup of 
sites to be converted into parks or open space. It also authorizes $50 
million per year to establish and enhance state brownfield programs. 
The bill clarifies that prospective purchasers, innocent landowners, 
and contiguous property owners, that act appropriately, are not 
responsible for paying cleanup costs. Finally, this legislation offers 
finality by precluding EPA from taking an action at a site being 
addressed under a state cleanup program unless there is an ``imminent 
and substantial endangerment'' to public health or the environment, and 
additional work needs to be done.
  Enactment of this legislation and the accompanying redevelopment will 
provide a building block for the revitalization of our communities. 
Communities whose fortunes sank along with the decline of mills and 
factories will once again attract new residents and well-paying jobs. 
We will bring vibrant industry back to the brownfield sites that 
currently host crime, mischief and contamination. There will be parks 
at sites that now contain more rubble than grass. City tax rolls will 
burgeon; schools will be invigorated; new homes will be built, and 
community character will be restored. This vision for our communities 
can be realized with enactment of this legislation.
  As with all legislation, we must reach across the aisle and work with 
bipartisan cooperation to be successful. The legislation we are 
introducing today garnered sixty-six bipartisan co-sponsors in the 
106th Congress. It also enjoyed broad support from the real estate 
community, local government officials, state officials, business 
groups, and environmental groups. I hope that the bill will continue to 
attract such broad support in the 107th Congress. I would like to thank 
Chairman Bob Smith, and Senators Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer for their 
leadership on this issue and their steadfast commitment to moving this 
legislation forward. I look forward to working with all my colleagues 
and with the Administration on this very important measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of 
support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 350

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration 
     Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

              TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING

Sec. 101. Brownfields revitalization funding.

             TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS

Sec. 201. Contiguous properties.
Sec. 202. Prospective purchasers and windfall liens.
Sec. 203. Innocent landowners.

                   TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS

Sec. 301. State response programs.
Sec. 302. Additions to National Priorities List.

              TITLE I--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING

     SEC. 101. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.

       (a) Definition of Brownfield Site.--Section 101 of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(39) Brownfield site.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `brownfield site' means real 
     property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may 
     be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a 
     hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `brownfield site' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) a facility that is the subject of a planned or 
     ongoing removal action under this title;

[[Page S1482]]

       ``(ii) a facility that is listed on the National Priorities 
     List or is proposed for listing;
       ``(iii) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral 
     administrative order, a court order, an administrative order 
     on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to 
     or entered into by the parties under this Act;
       ``(iv) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral 
     administrative order, a court order, an administrative order 
     on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to 
     or entered into by the parties, or a facility to which a 
     permit has been issued by the United States or an authorized 
     State under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1321), the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et 
     seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 
     seq.);
       ``(v) a facility that--

       ``(I) is subject to corrective action under section 3004(u) 
     or 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6924(u), 6928(h)); and
       ``(II) to which a corrective action permit or order has 
     been issued or modified to require the implementation of 
     corrective measures;

       ``(vi) a land disposal unit with respect to which--

       ``(I) a closure notification under subtitle C of the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) has been 
     submitted; and
       ``(II) closure requirements have been specified in a 
     closure plan or permit;

       ``(vii) a facility that is subject to the jurisdiction, 
     custody, or control of a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States, except for land held in 
     trust by the United States for an Indian tribe;
       ``(viii) a portion of a facility--

       ``(I) at which there has been a release of polychlorinated 
     biphenyls; and
       ``(II) that is subject to remediation under the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.); or

       ``(ix) a portion of a facility, for which portion, 
     assistance for response activity has been obtained under 
     subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et 
     seq.) from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
     established under section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.
       ``(C) Site-by-site determinations.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (B) and on a site-by-site basis, the President 
     may authorize financial assistance under section 128 to an 
     eligible entity at a site included in clause (i), (iv), (v), 
     (vi), (viii), or (ix) of subparagraph (B) if the President 
     finds that financial assistance will protect human health and 
     the environment, and either promote economic development or 
     enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition to 
     parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational 
     property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.
       ``(D) Additional areas.--For the purposes of section 128, 
     the term `brownfield site' includes--
       ``(i) a site that is contaminated by a controlled substance 
     (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 802)); and
       ``(ii) mine-scarred land.''.
       (b) Brownfields Revitalization Funding.--Title I of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 128. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING.

       ``(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the 
     term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(1) a general purpose unit of local government;
       ``(2) a land clearance authority or other quasi-
     governmental entity that operates under the supervision and 
     control of or as an agent of a general purpose unit of local 
     government;
       ``(3) a government entity created by a State legislature;
       ``(4) a regional council or group of general purpose units 
     of local government;
       ``(5) a redevelopment agency that is chartered or otherwise 
     sanctioned by a State;
       ``(6) a State; or
       ``(7) an Indian Tribe.
       ``(b) Brownfield Site Characterization and Assessment Grant 
     Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator shall 
     establish a program to--
       ``(A) provide grants to inventory, characterize, assess, 
     and conduct planning related to brownfield sites under 
     paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) perform targeted site assessments at brownfield 
     sites.
       ``(2) Assistance for site characterization and 
     assessment.--
       ``(A) In general.--On approval of an application made by an 
     eligible entity, the Administrator may make a grant to the 
     eligible entity to be used for programs to inventory, 
     characterize, assess, and conduct planning related to 1 or 
     more brownfield sites.
       ``(B) Site characterization and assessment.--A site 
     characterization and assessment carried out with the use of a 
     grant under subparagraph (A) shall be performed in accordance 
     with section 101(35)(B).
       ``(c) Grants and Loans for Brownfield Remediation.--
       ``(1) Grants provided by the president.--Subject to 
     subsections (d) and (e), the President shall establish a 
     program to provide grants to--
       ``(A) eligible entities, to be used for capitalization of 
     revolving loan funds; and
       ``(B) eligible entities or nonprofit organizations, where 
     warranted, as determined by the President based on 
     considerations under paragraph (3), to be used directly for 
     remediation of 1 or more brownfield sites that is owned by 
     the entity or organization that receives the grant and in 
     amounts not to exceed $200,000 for each site to be 
     remediated.
       ``(2) Loans and grants provided by eligible entities.--An 
     eligible entity that receives a grant under paragraph (1)(A) 
     shall use the grant funds to provide assistance for the 
     remediation of brownfield sites in the form of--
       ``(A) 1 or more loans to an eligible entity, a site owner, 
     a site developer, or another person; or
       ``(B) 1 or more grants to an eligible entity or other 
     nonprofit organization, where warranted, as determined by the 
     eligible entity that is providing the assistance, based on 
     considerations under paragraph (3), to remediate sites owned 
     by the eligible entity or nonprofit organization that 
     receives the grant.
       ``(3) Considerations.--In determining whether a grant under 
     paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B) is warranted, the President or the 
     eligible entity, as the case may be, shall take into 
     consideration--
       ``(A) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the 
     creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a 
     greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or 
     other property used for nonprofit purposes;
       ``(B) the extent to which a grant will meet the needs of a 
     community that has an inability to draw on other sources of 
     funding for environmental remediation and subsequent 
     redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is 
     located because of the small population or low income of the 
     community;
       ``(C) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the use 
     or reuse of existing infrastructure;
       ``(D) the benefit of promoting the long-term availability 
     of funds from a revolving loan fund for brownfield 
     remediation; and
       ``(E) such other factors as the Administrator considers 
     appropriate to consider for the purposes of this section.
       ``(4) Compliance with applicable laws.--An eligible entity 
     that provides assistance under paragraph (2) shall include in 
     all loan and grant agreements a requirement that the loan or 
     grant recipient shall comply with all laws applicable to the 
     cleanup for which grant funds will be used and ensure that 
     the cleanup protects human health and the environment.
       ``(5) Transition.--Revolving loan funds that have been 
     established before the date of enactment of this section may 
     be used in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(d) General Provisions.--
       ``(1) Maximum grant amount.--
       ``(A) Brownfield site characterization and assessment.--
       ``(i) In general.--A grant under subsection (b)--

       ``(I) may be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-
     wide or site-by-site basis; and
       ``(II) shall not exceed, for any individual brownfield site 
     covered by the grant, $200,000.

       ``(ii) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the $200,000 
     limitation under clause (i)(II) to permit the brownfield site 
     to receive a grant of not to exceed $350,000, based on the 
     anticipated level of contamination, size, or status of 
     ownership of the site.
       ``(B) Brownfield remediation.--
       ``(i) Grant amount.--A grant under subsection (c)(1)(A) may 
     be awarded to an eligible entity on a community-wide or site-
     by-site basis, not to exceed $1,000,000 per eligible entity.
       ``(ii) Additional grant amount.--The Administrator may make 
     an additional grant to an eligible entity described in clause 
     (i) for any year after the year for which the initial grant 
     is made, taking into consideration--

       ``(I) the number of sites and number of communities that 
     are addressed by the revolving loan fund;
       ``(II) the demand for funding by eligible entities that 
     have not previously received a grant under this section;
       ``(III) the demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to 
     use the revolving loan fund to enhance remediation and 
     provide funds on a continuing basis; and
       ``(IV) any other factors that the Administrator considers 
     appropriate to carry out this section.

       ``(2) Prohibition.--
       ``(A) In general.--No part of a grant or loan under this 
     section may be used for the payment of--
       ``(i) a penalty or fine;
       ``(ii) a Federal cost-share requirement;
       ``(iii) an administrative cost;
       ``(iv) a response cost at a brownfield site for which the 
     recipient of the grant or loan is potentially liable under 
     section 107; or
       ``(v) a cost of compliance with any Federal law (including 
     a Federal law specified in section 101(39)(B)).
       ``(B) Exclusions.--For the purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(iii), the term `administrative cost' does not include the 
     cost of--
       ``(i) investigation and identification of the extent of 
     contamination;
       ``(ii) design and performance of a response action; or
       ``(iii) monitoring of a natural resource.
       ``(3) Assistance for development of local government site 
     remediation programs.--A local government that receives a

[[Page S1483]]

     grant under this section may use not to exceed 10 percent of 
     the grant funds to develop and implement a brownfields 
     program that may include--
       ``(A) monitoring the health of populations exposed to 1 or 
     more hazardous substances from a brownfield site; and
       ``(B) monitoring and enforcement of any institutional 
     control used to prevent human exposure to any hazardous 
     substance from a brownfield site.
       ``(e) Grant Applications.--
       ``(1) Submission.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Application.--An eligible entity may submit to the 
     Administrator, through a regional office of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and in such form as the Administrator may 
     require, an application for a grant under this section for 1 
     or more brownfield sites (including information on the 
     criteria used by the Administrator to rank applications under 
     paragraph (3), to the extent that the information is 
     available).
       ``(ii) NCP requirements.--The Administrator may include in 
     any requirement for submission of an application under clause 
     (i) a requirement of the National Contingency Plan only to 
     the extent that the requirement is relevant and appropriate 
     to the program under this section.
       ``(B) Coordination.--The Administrator shall coordinate 
     with other Federal agencies to assist in making eligible 
     entities aware of other available Federal resources.
       ``(C) Guidance.--The Administrator shall publish guidance 
     to assist eligible entities in applying for grants under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Approval.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(A) complete an annual review of applications for grants 
     that are received from eligible entities under this section; 
     and
       ``(B) award grants under this section to eligible entities 
     that the Administrator determines have the highest rankings 
     under the ranking criteria established under paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Ranking criteria.--The Administrator shall establish 
     a system for ranking grant applications received under this 
     subsection that includes the following criteria:
       ``(A) The extent to which a grant will stimulate the 
     availability of other funds for environmental assessment or 
     remediation, and subsequent reuse, of an area in which 1 or 
     more brownfield sites are located.
       ``(B) The potential of the proposed project or the 
     development plan for an area in which 1 or more brownfield 
     sites are located to stimulate economic development of the 
     area on completion of the cleanup.
       ``(C) The extent to which a grant would address or 
     facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to 
     human health and the environment.
       ``(D) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the use 
     or reuse of existing infrastructure.
       ``(E) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the 
     creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a 
     greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or 
     other property used for nonprofit purposes.
       ``(F) The extent to which a grant would meet the needs of a 
     community that has an inability to draw on other sources of 
     funding for environmental remediation and subsequent 
     redevelopment of the area in which a brownfield site is 
     located because of the small population or low income of the 
     community.
       ``(G) The extent to which the applicant is eligible for 
     funding from other sources.
       ``(H) The extent to which a grant will further the fair 
     distribution of funding between urban and nonurban areas.
       ``(I) The extent to which the grant provides for 
     involvement of the local community in the process of making 
     decisions relating to cleanup and future use of a brownfield 
     site.
       ``(f) Implementation of Brownfields Programs.--
       ``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator may 
     provide, or fund eligible entities to provide, training, 
     research, and technical assistance to individuals and 
     organizations, as appropriate, to facilitate the inventory of 
     brownfield sites, site assessments, remediation of brownfield 
     sites, community involvement, or site preparation.
       ``(2) Funding restrictions.--The total Federal funds to be 
     expended by the Administrator under this subsection shall not 
     exceed 15 percent of the total amount appropriated to carry 
     out this section in any fiscal year.
       ``(g) Audits.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct such reviews or 
     audits of grants and loans under this section as the 
     Inspector General considers necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(2) Procedure.--An audit under this paragraph shall be 
     conducted in accordance with the auditing procedures of the 
     General Accounting Office, including chapter 75 of title 31, 
     United States Code.
       ``(3) Violations.--If the Administrator determines that a 
     person that receives a grant or loan under this section has 
     violated or is in violation of a condition of the grant, 
     loan, or applicable Federal law, the Administrator may--
       ``(A) terminate the grant or loan;
       ``(B) require the person to repay any funds received; and
       ``(C) seek any other legal remedies available to the 
     Administrator.
       ``(h) Leveraging.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this section may use the grant funds for a portion of a 
     project at a brownfield site for which funding is received 
     from other sources if the grant funds are used only for the 
     purposes described in subsection (b) or (c).
       ``(i) Agreements.--Each grant or loan made under this 
     section shall be subject to an agreement that--
       ``(1) requires the recipient to comply with all applicable 
     Federal and State laws;
       ``(2) requires that the recipient use the grant or loan 
     exclusively for purposes specified in subsection (b) or (c), 
     as applicable;
       ``(3) in the case of an application by an eligible entity 
     under subsection (c)(1), requires the eligible entity to pay 
     a matching share (which may be in the form of a contribution 
     of labor, material, or services) of at least 20 percent, from 
     non-Federal sources of funding, unless the Administrator 
     determines that the matching share would place an undue 
     hardship on the eligible entity; and
       ``(4) contains such other terms and conditions as the 
     Administrator determines to be necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(j) Facility Other Than Brownfield Site.--The fact that a 
     facility may not be a brownfield site within the meaning of 
     section 101(39)(A) has no effect on the eligibility of the 
     facility for assistance under any other provision of Federal 
     law.
       ``(k) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2006.''.

             TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY CLARIFICATIONS

     SEC. 201. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.

       Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Contiguous Properties.--
       ``(1) Not considered to be an owner or operator.--
       ``(A) In general.--A person that owns real property that is 
     contiguous to or otherwise similarly situated with respect 
     to, and that is or may be contaminated by a release or 
     threatened release of a hazardous substance from, real 
     property that is not owned by that person shall not be 
     considered to be an owner or operator of a vessel or facility 
     under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) solely by reason 
     of the contamination if--
       ``(i) the person did not cause, contribute, or consent to 
     the release or threatened release;
       ``(ii) the person is not--

       ``(I) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other 
     person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a 
     facility through any direct or indirect familial relationship 
     or any contractual, corporate, or financial relationship 
     (other than a contractual, corporate, or financial 
     relationship that is created by a contract for the sale of 
     goods or services); or
       ``(II) the result of a reorganization of a business entity 
     that was potentially liable;

       ``(iii) the person takes reasonable steps to--

       ``(I) stop any continuing release;
       ``(II) prevent any threatened future release; and
       ``(III) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural 
     resource exposure to any hazardous substance released on or 
     from property owned by that person;

       ``(iv) the person provides full cooperation, assistance, 
     and access to persons that are authorized to conduct response 
     actions or natural resource restoration at the vessel or 
     facility from which there has been a release or threatened 
     release (including the cooperation and access necessary for 
     the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance of 
     any complete or partial response action at the vessel or 
     facility);
       ``(v) the person--

       ``(I) is in compliance with any land use restrictions 
     established or relied on in connection with the response 
     action at a facility; and
       ``(II) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of 
     any institutional control employed in connection with a 
     response action;

       ``(vi) the person is in compliance with any request for 
     information or administrative subpoena issued by the 
     President under this Act;
       ``(vii) the person provides all legally required notices 
     with respect to the discovery or release of any hazardous 
     substances at the facility; and
       ``(viii) at the time at which the person acquired the 
     property, the person--

       ``(I) conducted all appropriate inquiry within the meaning 
     of section 101(35)(B) with respect to the property; and
       ``(II) did not know or have reason to know that the 
     property was or could be contaminated by a release or 
     threatened release of 1 or more hazardous substances from 
     other real property not owned or operated by the person.

       ``(B) Demonstration.--To qualify as a person described in 
     subparagraph (A), a person must establish by a preponderance 
     of the evidence that the conditions in clauses (i) through 
     (viii) of subparagraph (A) have been met.
       ``(C) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--Any person that 
     does not qualify as a person described in this paragraph 
     because the person had knowledge specified in subparagraph 
     (A)(viii) at the time of acquisition of the real property may 
     qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser under section 
     101(40) if the person is otherwise described in that section.
       ``(D) Ground water.--If a hazardous substance from 1 or 
     more sources that are not on the property of a person enters 
     ground

[[Page S1484]]

     water beneath the property of the person solely as a result 
     of subsurface migration in an aquifer, subparagraph (A)(iii) 
     shall not require the person to conduct ground water 
     investigations or to install ground water remediation 
     systems, except in accordance with the policy of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency concerning owners of property 
     containing contaminated aquifers, dated May 24, 1995.
       ``(2) Effect of law.--With respect to a person described in 
     this subsection, nothing in this subsection--
       ``(A) limits any defense to liability that may be available 
     to the person under any other provision of law; or
       ``(B) imposes liability on the person that is not otherwise 
     imposed by subsection (a).
       ``(3) Assurances.--The Administrator may--
       ``(A) issue an assurance that no enforcement action under 
     this Act will be initiated against a person described in 
     paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) grant a person described in paragraph (1) protection 
     against a cost recovery or contribution action under section 
     113(f).''.

     SEC. 202. PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS AND WINDFALL LIENS.

       (a) Definition of Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser.--Section 
     101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as 
     amended by section 101(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(40) Bona fide prospective purchaser.--The term `bona 
     fide prospective purchaser' means a person (or a tenant of a 
     person) that acquires ownership of a facility after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph and that establishes each of 
     the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
       ``(A) Disposal prior to acquisition.--All disposal of 
     hazardous substances at the facility occurred before the 
     person acquired the facility.
       ``(B) Inquiries.--
       ``(i) In general.--The person made all appropriate 
     inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the 
     facility in accordance with generally accepted good 
     commercial and customary standards and practices in 
     accordance with clauses (ii) and (iii).
       ``(ii) Standards and practices.--The standards and 
     practices referred to in clauses (ii) and (iv) of paragraph 
     (35)(B) shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of 
     this subparagraph.
       ``(iii) Residential use.--In the case of property in 
     residential or other similar use at the time of purchase by a 
     nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility 
     inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further 
     investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements 
     of this subparagraph.
       ``(C) Notices.--The person provides all legally required 
     notices with respect to the discovery or release of any 
     hazardous substances at the facility.
       ``(D) Care.--The person exercises appropriate care with 
     respect to hazardous substances found at the facility by 
     taking reasonable steps to--
       ``(i) stop any continuing release;
       ``(ii) prevent any threatened future release; and
       ``(iii) prevent or limit human, environmental, or natural 
     resource exposure to any previously released hazardous 
     substance.
       ``(E) Cooperation, assistance, and access.--The person 
     provides full cooperation, assistance, and access to persons 
     that are authorized to conduct response actions at a vessel 
     or facility (including the cooperation and access necessary 
     for the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance 
     of any complete or partial response actions at the vessel or 
     facility).
       ``(F) Institutional control.--The person--
       ``(i) is in compliance with any land use restrictions 
     established or relied on in connection with the response 
     action at a vessel or facility; and
       ``(ii) does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of 
     any institutional control employed at the vessel or facility 
     in connection with a response action.
       ``(G) Requests; subpoenas.--The person complies with any 
     request for information or administrative subpoena issued by 
     the President under this Act.
       ``(H) No affiliation.--The person is not--
       ``(i) potentially liable, or affiliated with any other 
     person that is potentially liable, for response costs at a 
     facility through--

       ``(I) any direct or indirect familial relationship; or
       ``(II) any contractual, corporate, or financial 
     relationship (other than a contractual, corporate, or 
     financial relationship that is created by the instruments by 
     which title to the facility is conveyed or financed or by a 
     contract for the sale of goods or services); or

       ``(ii) the result of a reorganization of a business entity 
     that was potentially liable.''.
       (b) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--Section 107 
     of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
     and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) (as amended by 
     section 201) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--
       ``(1) Limitation on liability.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (a)(1), a bona fide prospective purchaser whose potential 
     liability for a release or threatened release is based solely 
     on the purchaser's being considered to be an owner or 
     operator of a facility shall not be liable as long as the 
     bona fide prospective purchaser does not impede the 
     performance of a response action or natural resource 
     restoration.
       ``(2) Lien.--If there are unrecovered response costs 
     incurred by the United States at a facility for which an 
     owner of the facility is not liable by reason of paragraph 
     (1), and if each of the conditions described in paragraph (3) 
     is met, the United States shall have a lien on the facility, 
     or may by agreement with the party obtain from an appropriate 
     party a lien on any other property or other assurance of 
     payment satisfactory to the Administrator, for the 
     unrecovered response costs.
       ``(3) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in paragraph 
     (2) are the following:
       ``(A) Response action.--A response action for which there 
     are unrecovered costs of the United States is carried out at 
     the facility.
       ``(B) Fair market value.--The response action increases the 
     fair market value of the facility above the fair market value 
     of the facility that existed before the response action was 
     initiated.
       ``(4) Amount; duration.--A lien under paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) shall be in an amount not to exceed the increase in 
     fair market value of the property attributable to the 
     response action at the time of a sale or other disposition of 
     the property;
       ``(B) shall arise at the time at which costs are first 
     incurred by the United States with respect to a response 
     action at the facility;
       ``(C) shall be subject to the requirements of subsection 
     (l)(3); and
       ``(D) shall continue until the earlier of--
       ``(i) satisfaction of the lien by sale or other means; or
       ``(ii) notwithstanding any statute of limitations under 
     section 113, recovery of all response costs incurred at the 
     facility.''.

     SEC. 203. INNOCENT LANDOWNERS.

       Section 101(35) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(35)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the first sentence, in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``deeds or'' and inserting ``deeds, 
     easements, leases, or''; and
       (B) in the second sentence--
       (i) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the defendant''; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, 
     provides full cooperation, assistance, and facility access to 
     the persons that are authorized to conduct response actions 
     at the facility (including the cooperation and access 
     necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, and 
     maintenance of any complete or partial response action at the 
     facility), and is in compliance with any land use 
     restrictions established or relied on in connection with the 
     response action at a facility, and does not impede the 
     effectiveness or integrity of any institutional control 
     employed at the facility in connection with a response 
     action.''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Reason to know.--
       ``(i) All appropriate inquiries.--To establish that the 
     defendant had no reason to know of the matter described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i), the defendant must demonstrate to a 
     court that--

       ``(I) on or before the date on which the defendant acquired 
     the facility, the defendant carried out all appropriate 
     inquiries, as provided in clauses (ii) and (iv), into the 
     previous ownership and uses of the facility in accordance 
     with generally accepted good commercial and customary 
     standards and practices; and
       ``(II) the defendant took reasonable steps to--

       ``(aa) stop any continuing release;
       ``(bb) prevent any threatened future release; and
       ``(cc) prevent or limit any human, environmental, or 
     natural resource exposure to any previously released 
     hazardous substance.
       ``(ii) Standards and practices.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of the Brownfields Revitalization 
     and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, the Administrator 
     shall by regulation establish standards and practices for the 
     purpose of satisfying the requirement to carry out all 
     appropriate inquiries under clause (i).
       ``(iii) Criteria.--In promulgating regulations that 
     establish the standards and practices referred to in clause 
     (ii), the Administrator shall include each of the following:

       ``(I) The results of an inquiry by an environmental 
     professional.
       ``(II) Interviews with past and present owners, operators, 
     and occupants of the facility for the purpose of gathering 
     information regarding the potential for contamination at the 
     facility.
       ``(III) Reviews of historical sources, such as chain of 
     title documents, aerial photographs, building department 
     records, and land use records, to determine previous uses and 
     occupancies of the real property since the property was first 
     developed.
       ``(IV) Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens 
     against the facility that are filed under Federal, State, or 
     local law.
       ``(V) Reviews of Federal, State, and local government 
     records, waste disposal records, underground storage tank 
     records, and hazardous waste handling, generation, treatment, 
     disposal, and spill records, concerning contamination at or 
     near the facility.
       ``(VI) Visual inspections of the facility and of adjoining 
     properties.

[[Page S1485]]

       ``(VII) Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of 
     the defendant.
       ``(VIII) The relationship of the purchase price to the 
     value of the property, if the property was not contaminated.
       ``(IX) Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
     information about the property.
       ``(X) The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely 
     presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to 
     detect the contamination by appropriate investigation.

       ``(iv) Interim standards and practices.--

       ``(I) Property purchased before may 31, 1997.--With respect 
     to property purchased before May 31, 1997, in making a 
     determination with respect to a defendant described of clause 
     (i), a court shall take into account--

       ``(aa) any specialized knowledge or experience on the part 
     of the defendant;
       ``(bb) the relationship of the purchase price to the value 
     of the property, if the property was not contaminated;
       ``(cc) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
     information about the property;
       ``(dd) the obviousness of the presence or likely presence 
     of contamination at the property; and
       ``(ee) the ability of the defendant to detect the 
     contamination by appropriate inspection.

       ``(II) Property purchased on or after may 31, 1997.--With 
     respect to property purchased on or after May 31, 1997, and 
     until the Administrator promulgates the regulations described 
     in clause (ii), the procedures of the American Society for 
     Testing and Materials, including the document known as 
     `Standard E1527-97', entitled `Standard Practice for 
     Environmental Site Assessment: Phase 1 Environmental Site 
     Assessment Process', shall satisfy the requirements in clause 
     (i).

       ``(v) Site inspection and title search.--In the case of 
     property for residential use or other similar use purchased 
     by a nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a facility 
     inspection and title search that reveal no basis for further 
     investigation shall be considered to satisfy the requirements 
     of this subparagraph.''.

                   TITLE III--STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS

     SEC. 301. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) (as amended by section 202) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(41) Eligible response site.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible response site' means 
     a site that meets the definition of a brownfield site in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (39), as modified by 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `eligible response site' 
     includes--
       ``(i) notwithstanding paragraph (39)(B)(ix), a portion of a 
     facility, for which portion assistance for response activity 
     has been obtained under subtitle I of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) from the Leaking 
     Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund established under section 
     9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(ii) a site for which, notwithstanding the exclusions 
     provided in subparagraph (C) or paragraph (39)(B), the 
     President determines, on a site-by-site basis and after 
     consultation with the State, that limitations on enforcement 
     under section 129 at sites specified in clause (iv), (v), 
     (vi) or (viii) of paragraph (39)(B) would be appropriate and 
     will--

       ``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
       ``(II) promote economic development or facilitate the 
     creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, a 
     greenway, undeveloped property, recreational property, or 
     other property used for nonprofit purposes.

       ``(C) Exclusions.--The term `eligible response site' does 
     not include--
       ``(i) a facility for which the President--

       ``(I) conducts or has conducted a remedial site 
     investigation; and
       ``(II) after consultation with the State, determines or has 
     determined that the site qualifies for listing on the 
     National Priorities List;

     unless the President has made a determination that no further 
     Federal action will be taken; or
       ``(ii) facilities that the President determines warrant 
     particular consideration as identified by regulation, such as 
     sites posing a threat to a sole-source drinking water aquifer 
     or a sensitive ecosystem.''.
       (b) State Response Programs.--Title I of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) (as amended by section 101(b)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 129. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Assistance to States.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) States.--The Administrator may award a grant to a 
     State or Indian tribe that--
       ``(i) has a response program that includes each of the 
     elements, or is taking reasonable steps to include each of 
     the elements, listed in paragraph (2); or
       ``(ii) is a party to a memorandum of agreement with the 
     Administrator for voluntary response programs.
       ``(B) Use of grants by states.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State or Indian tribe may use a grant 
     under this subsection to establish or enhance the response 
     program of the State or Indian tribe.
       ``(ii) Additional uses.--In addition to the uses under 
     clause (i), a State or Indian tribe may use a grant under 
     this subsection to--

       ``(I) capitalize a revolving loan fund for brownfield 
     remediation under section 128(c); or
       ``(II) develop a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or 
     insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions 
     under a State response program.

       ``(2) Elements.--The elements of a State or Indian tribe 
     response program referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) are the 
     following:
       ``(A) Timely survey and inventory of brownfield sites in 
     the State.
       ``(B) Oversight and enforcement authorities or other 
     mechanisms, and resources, that are adequate to ensure that--
       ``(i) a response action will--

       ``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
       ``(II) be conducted in accordance with applicable Federal 
     and State law; and

       ``(ii) if the person conducting the response action fails 
     to complete the necessary response activities, including 
     operation and maintenance or long-term monitoring activities, 
     the necessary response activities are completed.
       ``(C) Mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful 
     opportunities for public participation, including--
       ``(i) public access to documents that the State, Indian 
     tribe, or party conducting the cleanup is relying on or 
     developing in making cleanup decisions or conducting site 
     activities; and
       ``(ii) prior notice and opportunity for comment on proposed 
     cleanup plans and site activities.
       ``(D) Mechanisms for approval of a cleanup plan, and a 
     requirement for verification by and certification or similar 
     documentation from the State, an Indian tribe, or a licensed 
     site professional to the person conducting a response action 
     indicating that the response is complete.
       ``(3) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2006.
       ``(b) Enforcement in Cases of a Release Subject to State 
     Program.--
       ``(1) Enforcement.--
       ``(A) In general.-- Except as provided in subparagraph (B) 
     and subject to subparagraph (C), in the case of an eligible 
     response site at which--
       ``(i) there is a release or threatened release of a 
     hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant; and
       ``(ii) a person is conducting or has completed a response 
     action regarding the specific release that is addressed by 
     the response action that is in compliance with the State 
     program that specifically governs response actions for the 
     protection of public health and the environment;

     the President may not use authority under this Act to take an 
     administrative or judicial enforcement action under section 
     106(a) or to take a judicial enforcement action to recover 
     response costs under section 107(a) against the person 
     regarding the specific release that is addressed by the 
     response action.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--The President may bring an enforcement 
     action under this Act during or after completion of a 
     response action described in subparagraph (A) with respect to 
     a release or threatened release at an eligible response site 
     described in that subparagraph if--
       ``(i) the State requests that the President provide 
     assistance in the performance of a response action;
       ``(ii) the Administrator determines that contamination has 
     migrated or will migrate across a State line, resulting in 
     the need for further response action to protect human health 
     or the environment, or the President determines that 
     contamination has migrated or is likely to migrate onto 
     property subject to the jurisdiction, custody, or control of 
     a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
     and may impact the authorized purposes of the Federal 
     property;
       ``(iii) after taking into consideration the response 
     activities already taken, the Administrator determines that--

       ``(I) a release or threatened release may present an 
     imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or 
     welfare or the environment; and
       ``(II) additional response actions are likely to be 
     necessary to address, prevent, limit, or mitigate the release 
     or threatened release; or

       ``(iv) the Administrator determines that information, that 
     on the earlier of the date on which cleanup was approved or 
     completed, was not known by the State, as recorded in 
     documents prepared or relied on in selecting or conducting 
     the cleanup, has been discovered regarding the contamination 
     or conditions at a facility such that the contamination or 
     conditions at the facility present a threat requiring further 
     remediation to protect public health or welfare or the 
     environment.
       ``(C) Public record.--The limitations on the authority of 
     the President under subparagraph (A) apply only at sites in 
     States that maintain, update not less than annually, and make 
     available to the public a record of sites, by name and 
     location, at which response actions have been completed in 
     the previous year and are planned to be addressed under the 
     State program that specifically governs response actions for 
     the protection of public health and the environment in the 
     upcoming year. The public record shall identify whether or 
     not the site, on completion of the response action, will be

[[Page S1486]]

     suitable for unrestricted use and, if not, shall identify the 
     institutional controls relied on in the remedy. Each State 
     and tribe receiving financial assistance under subsection (a) 
     shall maintain and make available to the public a record of 
     sites as provided in this paragraph.
       ``(D) EPA notification.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of an eligible response site 
     at which there is a release or threatened release of a 
     hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant and for which 
     the Administrator intends to carry out an action that may be 
     barred under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall--

       ``(I) notify the State of the action the Administrator 
     intends to take; and
       ``(II)(aa) wait 48 hours for a reply from the State under 
     clause (ii); or
       ``(bb) if the State fails to reply to the notification or 
     if the Administrator makes a determination under clause 
     (iii), take immediate action under that clause.

       ``(ii) State reply.--Not later than 48 hours after a State 
     receives notice from the Administrator under clause (i), the 
     State shall notify the Administrator if--

       ``(I) the release at the eligible response site is or has 
     been subject to a cleanup conducted under a State program; 
     and
       ``(II) the State is planning to abate the release or 
     threatened release, any actions that are planned.

       ``(iii) Immediate federal action.--The Administrator may 
     take action immediately after giving notification under 
     clause (i) without waiting for a State reply under clause 
     (ii) if the Administrator determines that 1 or more 
     exceptions under subparagraph (B) are met.
       ``(E) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of initiation of any enforcement action by the President 
     under clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subparagraph (B), the 
     President shall submit to Congress a report describing the 
     basis for the enforcement action, including specific 
     references to the facts demonstrating that enforcement action 
     is permitted under subparagraph (B).
       ``(2) Savings provision.--
       ``(A) Costs incurred prior to limitations.--Nothing in 
     paragraph (1) precludes the President from seeking to recover 
     costs incurred prior to the date of enactment of this section 
     or during a period in which the limitations of paragraph 
     (1)(A) were not applicable.
       ``(B) Effect on agreements between states and epa.--Nothing 
     in paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) modifies or otherwise affects a memorandum of 
     agreement, memorandum of understanding, or any similar 
     agreement relating to this Act between a State agency or an 
     Indian tribe and the Administrator that is in effect on or 
     before the date of enactment of this section (which agreement 
     shall remain in effect, subject to the terms of the 
     agreement); or
       ``(ii) limits the discretionary authority of the President 
     to enter into or modify an agreement with a State, an Indian 
     tribe, or any other person relating to the implementation by 
     the President of statutory authorities.
       ``(3) Effective date.--This subsection applies only to 
     response actions conducted after June 8, 2000.
       ``(c) Effect on Federal Laws.--Nothing in this section 
     affects any liability or response authority under any Federal 
     law, including--
       ``(1) this Act, except as provided in subsection (b);
       ``(2) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.);
       ``(3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1251 et seq.);
       ``(4) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et 
     seq.); and
       ``(5) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 
     seq.).''.

     SEC. 302. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.

       Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) NPL Deferral.--
       ``(1) Deferral to state voluntary cleanups.--At the request 
     of a State and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     President generally shall defer final listing of an eligible 
     response site on the National Priorities List if the 
     President determines that--
       ``(A) the State, or another party under an agreement with 
     or order from the State, is conducting a response action at 
     the eligible response site--
       ``(i) in compliance with a State program that specifically 
     governs response actions for the protection of public health 
     and the environment; and
       ``(ii) that will provide long-term protection of human 
     health and the environment; or
       ``(B) the State is actively pursuing an agreement to 
     perform a response action described in subparagraph (A) at 
     the site with a person that the State has reason to believe 
     is capable of conducting a response action that meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Progress toward cleanup.--If, after the last day of 
     the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the 
     President proposes to list an eligible response site on the 
     National Priorities List, the President determines that the 
     State or other party is not making reasonable progress toward 
     completing a response action at the eligible response site, 
     the President may list the eligible response site on the 
     National Priorities List.
       ``(3) Cleanup agreements.--With respect to an eligible 
     response site under paragraph (1)(B), if, after the last day 
     of the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the 
     President proposes to list the eligible response site on the 
     National Priorities List, an agreement described in paragraph 
     (1)(B) has not been reached, the President may defer the 
     listing of the eligible response site on the National 
     Priorities List for an additional period of not to exceed 180 
     days if the President determines deferring the listing would 
     be appropriate based on--
       ``(A) the complexity of the site;
       ``(B) substantial progress made in negotiations; and
       ``(C) other appropriate factors, as determined by the 
     President.
       ``(4) Exceptions.--The President may decline to defer, or 
     elect to discontinue a deferral of, a listing of an eligible 
     response site on the National Priorities List if the 
     President determines that--
       ``(A) deferral would not be appropriate because the State, 
     as an owner or operator or a significant contributor of 
     hazardous substances to the facility, is a potentially 
     responsible party;
       ``(B) the criteria under the National Contingency Plan for 
     issuance of a health advisory have been met; or
       ``(C) the conditions in paragraphs (1) through (3), as 
     applicable, are no longer being met.''.
                                  ____

                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Hon Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk 
         Assessment, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon Harry Reid,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste 
         Control, and Risk Assessment, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.

       Dear Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee and Boxer: On behalf of 
     The United States Conference of Mayors, I am writing to 
     express the strong support of the nation's mayors for your 
     bipartisan legislation, the ``Brownfields Revitalization and 
     Environmental restoration Act of 2001.'' The mayors believe 
     that this legislation can dramatically improve the nation's 
     efforts to recycle abandoned and other underutilized 
     brownfield sites, providing new incentives and statutory 
     reforms to speed the assessment, cleanup and redevelopment of 
     these properties.
       This is a national problem that deserves a strong and 
     prompt federal response. The mayors believe that this 
     bipartisan legislation will help accelerate ongoing private 
     sector and public efforts to recycle America's land.
       We thank you for your leadership on this priority 
     legislation for the nation's cities. We strongly support this 
     legislation and we encourage you to move forward 
     expeditiously so that the nation can secure the many positive 
     benefits to be achieved from the reuse and redevelopment of 
     the many thousands of brownfields throughout the U.S.
           Sincerely,

                                               H. Brent Coles,

                                                        President,
     Mayor of Boise.
                                  ____



                 National Association of Realtors',

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chafee: On behalf of the more than 760,000 
     members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ', 
     I wish to convey our strong support for the ``Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act.'' NAR 
     commends you for your efforts in crafting a practical and 
     effective bill which has garnered bipartisan support from the 
     leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works 
     Committee.
       NAR supports this bill because it:
       Provides liability relief for innocent property owners who 
     have not caused or contributed to hazardous waste 
     contamination;
       Increases funding for the cleanup and redevelopment of the 
     hundreds of thousands of our nation's contaminated 
     ``brownfields'' sites;
       Recognizes the finality of successful state hazardous waste 
     cleanup efforts.
       Brownfields sites offer excellent opportunities for the 
     economic, environmental and social enrichment of our 
     communities. Unfortunately, liability concerns and a lack of 
     adequate resources often deter redevelopment of such sites. 
     As a result, properties that could be enhancing community 
     growth are left dilapidated, contributing to nothing

[[Page S1487]]

     but economic ruin. Once revitalized, however, brownfields 
     sites benefit their surrounding communities by increasing the 
     tax base, creating jobs and providing new housing.
       The new Administration has clearly indicated its support 
     for brownfields revitalization efforts. The ``Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act'' is a 
     positive, broadly-supported policy initiative. NAR looks 
     forward to working together with you to enact brownfields 
     legislation in the 107th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                               Richard Mendenhall,
     2001 President.
                                  ____



                               American Insurance Association,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Senator Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, Risk 
         Assessment, Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the American Insurance 
     Association, I want to congratulate you upon the introduction 
     of the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act.
       We believe this bill will provide necessary relief to many 
     cities struggling with the problem of abandoned, contaminated 
     properties. While insurance is now emerging as one of the 
     most useful tools for managing environmental liability risk 
     in the redevelopment of contaminated properties, insurance 
     products alone are not enough. The predicament for many 
     cities is that they don't have the resources to address the 
     brownfields problem, but they can't develop the resources 
     without addressing the brownfields problem. Your bill is a 
     giant step toward resolving this conundrum.
       In sum, we believe this bill constitutes a positive step 
     toward cleaning up hazardous waste sites. We are especially 
     happy to observe that the bill does this through a mechanism 
     other than litigation. Finally, we are pleased to note the 
     bill is the product of a bipartisan consensus of the 
     leadership of the Senate Environment Committee.
       We look forward to working with you to see that this 
     legislation becomes law.
           Sincerely,
                                                John G. Arlington,
     Assistant Vice President.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                             Industrial and Office Properties,

                                   Herndon, VA, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and 
         Risk Assessment, Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of The National Association of 
     Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP), I am writing to 
     voice our support for the Brownfields Revitalization and 
     Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. This legislation is 
     very important to the development community as it promotes 
     the cleanup and reuse of brownfields, provides financial 
     assistance for brownfields revitalization and helps to 
     provide incentives to put unused industrial sites back into 
     productive use.
       NAIOP, with over 9,400 members, is a national association 
     that represents the interests of developers, owners and 
     investors of industrial, office and related commercial real 
     estate throughout North America. We applaud the efforts of 
     the Committee to once again encourage brownfields 
     revitalization.
       With respect to brownfields, NAIOP is encouraged by the 
     grant program proposed in the bill and supports federal 
     assistance to states in establishing and expanding voluntary 
     clean up programs. These provisions demonstrate a serious 
     attempt toward achieving much-needed brownfields 
     revitalization, which is a primary concern to the commercial 
     real estate industry.
       All across the country there is debate about how to control 
     urban sprawl. We believe that this legislation will go 
     further to address the issue of sprawl, especially since it 
     will encourage the revitalization of our nations urban areas.
       NAIOP urges swift passage of this bill, and we look forward 
     to working with you to achieve this result.
           Sincerely,
     Anne Evans Estabrook,
       Chairman of the Board.
     Thomas J. Bisacquino,
       President.
                                  ____

                                          International Council of


                                             Shopping Centers,

                                Alexandria, VA, February 13, 2001.
     Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chafee: The International Council of Shopping 
     Centers (ICSC) strongly commends your plans to introduce the 
     ``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration 
     Act of 2001.'' Along with your co-sponsors, you have 
     displayed critical leadership on a public policy issue to 
     often caught up in partisan rhetoric. ICSC enthusiastically 
     supports the legislation, as we did last year with S. 2700, 
     and looks forward to working with you and your staff to 
     ensure its passage.
       Shopping centers are America's marketplace, representing 
     economic growth, environmentally responsibility, and 
     community strength. Founded in 1957, the ICSC is the global 
     trade association of the shopping center industry. Its nearly 
     35,000 U.S. members represent almost all of the 44,426 
     shopping centers in the United States. In addition, shopping 
     centers employ over 11 million people, about nine percent of 
     non-agricultural jobs in the United States. Legislation such 
     as the ``Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act of 2001'' will allow center developers to 
     further step-up their efforts to assist in the redevelopment 
     of urban areas in their continuing efforts to enhance the 
     environmental and economic quality of America's cities.
       The 2001 Act will provide practical solutions to many of 
     the issues developers confront when debating the merits of 
     brownfields redevelopment. Provisions providing liability 
     relief for innocent property owners who have not caused or 
     contributed to hazardous waste contamination; increased 
     funding for the cleanup and redevelopment of the hundreds of 
     thousands of the country's brownfields sites; and, 
     recognition that sites remediated under the authority of 
     state voluntary clean up laws should constitute final action 
     are all vital to encouraging development in sites that may 
     otherwise be left abandoned.
       The targeted reforms you have focused on will result in 
     greater infill development and enhance the urban landscape. 
     The 2001 Act will not only spur economic development but also 
     improve environmental quality throughout the country. ICSC 
     looks forward to working with you in the coming months in 
     support of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                          William H. Hoffman, III,
     Manager, Environmental Issues.
                                  ____



                                   The Real Estate Roundtable,

                                                February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chafee: I am writing on behalf of the Real 
     Estate Roundtable to express our members' enthusiastic 
     support for ``The Brownfields Revitalization and 
     Environmental Restoration Act of 2001'' (BRERA). This 
     important legislation would make welcome reforms to the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
     Liability Act or ``Superfund'' law.
       Last year's similar legislation achieved an astonishing 
     degree of bipartisan support--picking up a total 67 co-
     sponsors and broad support from a diverse array of 
     environmental, state and local government and business 
     organizations. Today we believe there is a great 
     opportunity--with help from the Bush Administration--to move 
     BRERA quickly through Congress and to the president's desk 
     for signature. In that regard, we have been heartened by the 
     strong signal of support for this type of bill sent by 
     President Bush during his campaign for the presidency. As 
     indicate by her remarks during her confirmation hearings, 
     Administrator Christine Todd Whitman will also clearly be an 
     ally.
       There are brownfields in every state--and almost every 
     community--in this country. If enacted into law, BRERA would 
     significantly advance the economic prospects for remediating 
     and recycling those properties into a broad range of 
     productive uses. The economic and regulatory incentives 
     included in the bill would help thousands of brownfield sites 
     across the country become vibrant new employment centers. In 
     other cases, the clean-up properties would provide many 
     communities with environmentally sound housing alternatives.
       As you know, The Real Estate Roundtable's members are 
     America's leading real estate owners, advisors, builders, 
     investors, lenders and managers. The Real Estate Roundtable 
     (and its predecessor organization the National Realty 
     Committee) has long supported enactment of bipartisan 
     legislation that includes meaningful incentives for 
     brownfields redevelopment. BRERA is clearly just such a piece 
     of legislation.
       In particular, the proposed legislation would go far in 
     assuring those parties purchasing already contaminated 
     ``brownfields'' properties that they have not also acquired 
     unwarranted Superfund liability. Such assurance is critical 
     to successfully financing and closing on brownfields 
     transaction. In addition, we are pleased the bill recognizes 
     the need to clarify the innocence of those individuals or 
     companies whose real property has become contaminated simply 
     because hazardous substances have migrated from adjacent 
     sites.
       The legislation also includes a provision that will, in 
     most cases, reassure participants in state voluntary cleanup 
     programs that their state-approved cleanup is not likely to 
     be ``second-guessed'' by federal officials. This so-called 
     ``finality'' assurance is crucial not only to potential 
     buyers and sellers of brownfields properties but to their 
     financial partners as well. The bill presents a welcome 
     compromise on a very difficult policy challenge.

[[Page S1488]]

       We look forward to working with you, other Senate leaders 
     and the Administration to encourage the swift passage of 
     BRERA.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jeffrey D. DeBoer,
     President and Chief Operating Officer.
                                  ____



                                    The Trust for Public Land,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and 
         Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Chafee, Senator Reid, and 
     Senator Boxer: On behalf of the Trust for Public Land, I am 
     writing to thank you for introducing the Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. We 
     appreciate your outstanding efforts to promote local 
     environmental quality, as typified by your energetic advocacy 
     of this brownfields legislation.
       TPL was honored to be part of the coalition that helped to 
     push this legislation to the brink of enactment at the end of 
     the 106th Congress, and we again look forward to working with 
     you to make this legislation a reality within the near 
     future. We are particularly grateful that you have re-
     introduced identical legislation this time around.
       Given our experience in community open-space issues, we are 
     heartened by the emphasis the legislation places on 
     brownfields-to-parks conversion where appropriate, and its 
     flexibility to tailor loan and grant funding based on 
     community needs and eventual uses. In all, this legislation 
     provides the framework and funding that an effective national 
     approach to brownfields requires, and offers the promise of a 
     much-needed federal partnership role in brownfields 
     reclamation.
       Brownfields afford some of the most promising 
     revitalization opportunities from our cities to more rural 
     locales. This legislation will serve to help meet the 
     pronounced needs in underserved communities to reclaim 
     abandoned sites and create open spaces where they are most 
     needed. By transforming these idled sites into urgently 
     needed parks and green spaces, or by focusing investment into 
     their appropriate redevelopment, reclamation of brownfield 
     properties brings new life to local economies and to the 
     spirit of neighborhoods.
       The Trust for Public Land gratefully recognizes the vision 
     and careful craftsmanship you have shown in your work to 
     advance this vital legislation, and we look forward to 
     working with you towards its enactment.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Alan Front,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____

                                                Institute of Scrap


                                   Recycling Industries, Inc.,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Robert C. Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and 
         Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith Reid, Chafee and Boxer: The Institute 
     of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI), strongly supports 
     the passage of the Brownfields Revitalization and 
     Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. Passage of this 
     bipartisan bill will reduce the many legal and regulatory 
     barriers that stand in the way of brownfields redevelopment.
       This important brownfields legislation will provide 
     liability relief for innocent property owners who purchase a 
     property without knowing that it is contaminated, but who 
     carry out a good faith effort to investigate the site. It 
     also recognizes the finality of successful state approved 
     voluntary cleanup efforts and provides funds to cleanup and 
     redevelop brownfields sites.
       ISRI stands ready to help build support for passage of this 
     bipartisan brownfields bill. In the previous Congress, ISRI's 
     membership worked to build grassroots support and sought 
     cosponsors for S. 2700 of the 106th Congress, the predecessor 
     bill to the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act of 2001.
       ISRI looks forward to continuing to work with you to see 
     that the brownfields bill you have sponsored becomes law. We 
     believe that the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act of 2001 is a model for sensible bipartisan 
     environmental policy.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robin K. Wiener,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                February 15, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC

     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and 
         Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Chafee, Senator Reid, and 
     Senator Boxer: We are writing to thank you for the 
     outstanding leadership you have demonstrated by your re-
     introduction of the Brownfields Revitalization and 
     Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. Our organizations, and 
     our many community partners across America, are heartened by 
     the benefits that this legislation would impart upon our 
     landscapes, economies, public parks and our communities as a 
     whole. Transforming abandoned brownfield sites into 
     greenfields or new development will provide momentum for 
     increasing ``smart growth'' and reducing sprawl by utilizing 
     existing transportation infrastructure, which in turn will 
     lead to better transportation systems and the revitalization 
     of historic areas and our urban centers.
       As you are well aware, brownfields pose some of the most 
     critical land-use challenges--and afford some of the most 
     promising revitalization opportunities--facing our nations' 
     communities, from our cities to more rural locales. 
     Revitalization of these idled sites into urgently needed 
     parks and green spaces or into appropriate redevelopment will 
     provide great benefits to our neighborhoods and local 
     economies. In the process, it has also proven to be an 
     extremely powerful too in local efforts to control urban 
     sprawl by directing economic growth to already developed 
     areas, encouraging the restoration and reuse of historical 
     sites, and in addressing longstanding issues of environmental 
     justice in underserved areas.
       We acknowledge the commitment that the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and other federal agencies have 
     demonstrated to brownfields restoration through existing 
     programs. At the same time, given that there are estimated 
     450,000-600,000 brownfield properties nationwide, we 
     recognize that these limited resources have been stretched 
     too far to allow for an optimal federal role. Additional 
     investment, at higher levels and in new directions, is 
     essential to meeting the enormous backlog of need and to 
     establishing the truest federal partnership with the many 
     state, local, and private entities working to renew 
     brownfield sites.
       The Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration 
     Amendments Act of 2001 would provide this much needed federal 
     response. Through our work with local governments, our 
     organizations have witnessed first-hand--and have often 
     worked as a partner to help create--the benefits that this 
     bill would provide. We are particularly gratified by the 
     emphasis your legislation places on brownfields-to-parks 
     conversion, and the flexibility its provides to tailor 
     funding based on a community's a particular needs. In all, 
     this bill provides the framework and funding that an 
     effective national approach to brownfields will require.
       Accordingly, we appreciate your vision in developing this 
     legislation, and we look forward to working with you towards 
     its enactment.
           Sincerely,
         The Trust for Public Land; Scenic America; American 
           Planning Association; The Enterprise Foundation; 
           National Association of Regional Councils; Smart Growth 
           America; Surface Transportation Policy Project; 
           National Recreation and Park Association.
                                  ____

                                            Environmental Business


                                             Action Coalition,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Robert Smith,
     Chairman, Environment & Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk 
         Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and 
         Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee, Boxer: On behalf of the 
     Environmental Business coalition (EBAC), I am writing to 
     strongly support your introduction of the

[[Page S1489]]

     Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act 
     of 2001. EBAC endorses this bipartisan effort and will work 
     with you to secure its passage this year.
       EBAC is an organization of nearly thirty-five environmental 
     engineering, scientific and construction firms representing 
     over 60,000 professional, managerial and support personnel in 
     the hazardous waste cleanup field. Our companies are the 
     experts in environmental cleanup, including Superfund and 
     brownfields nationwide.
       The Brownfields Revitalization and Environment Restoration 
     Act of 2001 would provide the much-needed ``finality'' for 
     states that already have successful cleanup programs. In 
     addition, the measure would provide critically needed 
     financial support for assessment and cleanup of brownfields. 
     Finally, the proposal's liability reforms will go a long way 
     in returning to productive use these abandoned sites 
     burdening communities across the country.
       While EBAC supports these provisions and believe they will 
     make important contributions to the redevelopment of 
     countless abandoned properties nationwide, we strongly urge 
     you to expand the liability reform provisions contained in 
     this legislation to include protections for Response Action 
     Contractors (RAC's) form the Superfund law's unfair liability 
     scheme. This will greatly increase the resources available 
     for cleanups across the country. Similarly, we urge you to 
     support the use of professional engineering judgment that 
     will increase program efficiency as opposed to imposing 
     nationwide ASTM standards on site cleanups. These ``one-size-
     fits-all'' dictates will needlessly complicate efforts by 
     creating legal uncertainty for professionals addressing the 
     inherently unique characteristics of contaminated sites.
       EBAC appreciates your hard work in drafting this important 
     legislation. We are committed to working closely with you to 
     move this measure to enactment.
           Sincerely,
                                              Jeremiah D. Jackson,
     President.
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                February 15, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk 
         Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and 
         Risk Assessment, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Chafee, Senator Reid and 
     Senator Boxer. Smart Growth America would like to thank you 
     for your leadership on the introduction the Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. A 
     broad coalition of elected officials, public and private 
     sector professionals, community groups, and environmentalists 
     have been championing the need for brownfields redevelopment 
     for many years. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently 
     conducted a survey and found that across the country, 210 
     cities are plagued with 21,000 industrial or commercial sites 
     whose redevelopment is hindered by environmental 
     contamination or sometimes just the perception of 
     contamination.
       As advocates of smart growth--growth that revitalizes 
     neighborhoods, creates and preserves affordable housing, 
     promotes transportation choice, preserves scenic and historic 
     resources, and conserves open space and farmland--we regard 
     brownfields redevelopment as a top priority. Although we 
     support the bill, we are concerned that the bill may not 
     provide adequate protection of the environment and public 
     health in certain cases. We believe this would be unwise and 
     hope to work with you on appropriate amendments to the 
     language.
       The primary obstacle to brownfields redevelopment has been 
     inadequate funding and liability issues for contiguous 
     landowners, prospective purchasers and innocent landowners. 
     This legislation addresses these issues and presents a 
     tremendous opportunity for communities to capitalize on their 
     untapped resources. The U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 
     176 cities estimated that between $878 million and $2.4 
     billion annually could be generated by fully tapping into the 
     potential of brownfields sites. In addition, 189 cities 
     predict that 554,419 new jobs could be generated.
       We believe the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act of 2001 will allow communities nationwide to 
     utilize their existing infrastructure to encourage economic 
     development, remove environmental and public health hazards, 
     promote neighborhood revitalization and preserve open space. 
     We support your efforts and look forward to working with you 
     to pass this truly groundbreaking legislation.
           Sincerely,
         Smart Growth America; National Trust for Historic 
           Preservation; Surface Transportation Policy Project; 
           Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Environmental Justice 
           Resource Center, Clark Atlanta University; Great 
           American Station Foundation, Center for Neighborhood 
           Technology; Scenic America; American Planning 
           Association; The Enterprise Foundation; National Center 
           for Bicycling and Walking; and Environmental & Energy 
           Study Institute.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, I am pleased to join Senator 
Reid, the ranking member of the Committee; Senator Chafee, the chairman 
of the Superfund Subcommittee; and Senator Boxer, ranking member of the 
Subcommittee, to introduce a bill that protects the environment, 
encourages community involvement, promotes economic redevelopment, 
provides incentive for the preservation of green spaces, and sets the 
stage for future comprehensive Superfund reform.
  As a nation, our industrial heritage has left us with numerous 
contaminated abandoned or underutilized ``brownfield'' sites. Although 
the level of contamination at many of these sites is relatively low, 
and the potential value of the property may be quite high, developers 
often shy away from redeveloping these sites. Behind their reluctance: 
uncertainty regarding the level of contamination, the extent of 
potential liability, or the likely costs of cleanup.
  The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 
2001 addresses the uncertainty that has long plagued developers, 
property owners, and communities seeking to make use of these otherwise 
desirable sites. This bill is identical to a bill we introduced last 
year, a bill that had the overwhelming support of 67 cosponsors, but 
unfortunately never saw floor time.
  How is our bill better than current law? Simply stated, our bill 
provides an element of finality which does not exist today, while 
allowing for federal involvement under a specific universe of 
conditions. Our bill strikes a solid balance on the issue of finality 
between so-called ``Republican bills'' and ``Democratic bills'' 
championed in previous years with no bipartisan support. Furthermore, 
our bill provides authorization for critically needed funds to assess 
and clean up brownfield sites, which will create jobs, increase tax 
revenues, and preserve and create open space and parks. This is a 
balanced bill. If you never had a chance to review it last year, do so 
now. This year, we are determined to move this bill through the 
process--and quickly. Senator Reid and I have committed to marking up 
this bill in early March, and we hope to have floor time soon 
afterwards.
  There are an estimated 450,000 brownfield sites in the United States. 
These are low risk sites, not the traditional Superfund sites that 
would be impacted by comprehensive Superfund reform. However, if States 
and citizens continue to be discouraged form cleaning up brownfield 
sites, these sites will never be redeveloped, and may in fact become 
Superfund sites. While I strongly believe that comprehensive Superfund 
reform is needed, I feel that we can move forward with brownfield 
legislation without compromising our chances for comprehensive reform.
  As brownfield sites are outside of the scope of Superfund, I believe 
that liability carve-outs are outside of the scope of any brownfield 
legislation. As I have done in the past, I continue to oppose narrow 
carve-outs. Carve-outs weaken attempts at overhauling the remedy 
selection and liability allocation provisions in the current Superfund 
statute and, frankly, make a bad system worse. Our brownfield 
legislation does not affect the allocation of liability at Superfund 
sites; instead, it provides needed resources to address sites, provides 
certainty to those who voluntarily cleanup, and prevents brownfields 
from being included in the superfund web. Brownfield legislation 
presents a win-win for all involved and should jumpstart action on 
substantive Superfund reform.
  Let me just say that last year, the Congress made a bold move in 
approving bipartisan legislation to restore the Florida Everglades. One 
of the proudest moments of my Senate career was witnessing the signing 
into law of that landmark environmental legislation. I want to use the 
Everglades model--cooperation, partnership, bipartisanship--as an 
example of what Congress can do when it puts aside personal politics 
for good policy. No one thought we'd get Everglades to the President's 
desk in a presidential election year, but we proved them wrong. 
Pessimists

[[Page S1490]]

have little faith that an equally divided Senate will accomplish more 
than partisan bickering. Let's prove them wrong, too, by committing to 
enact brownfield legislation in the first session of this Congress. By 
doing so, not only do we demonstrate to a skeptical nation that 
bipartisan cooperation is possible, but once again, the environment 
wins.
  Our bill represents a carefully negotiated compromise, and as is the 
nature of a compromise, both sides had to give a little to reach common 
ground. Now that we stand together on that common ground, let's not 
undermine our widespread support by trying to bring the bill farther to 
the left or to the right. The Brownfield Revitalization and 
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 is a strong bill and represents 
our best chance of addressing the issues plaguing brownfield sites. I 
urge your support for this bill.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bi-partisan 
legislation to cleanup American's brownfields. I am joined by my 
colleagues from the Environment and Public Works Committee in 
introducing this important legislation, Senators Chafee, Smith, Box, 
Baucus, Graham, Corzine, and Warner.
  This is an exciting beginning to my tenure as the ranking member of 
the Environment and Public Works--this bill which I hope will be 
enacted swiftly, has broad support on both sides of the aisle, and 
which is supported by environmentalists, realtors and the business 
community.
  What are brownfields? They are contaminated, abandoned sites that 
blight our communities, but also offer great promise for the future. 
there are, according to the Conference of Mayors, over 450,000 
brownfields in the US, in every state of the union, and in both rural 
and urban areas. The Conference of Mayors has estimated that 
redeveloping these sites would create more than 587,000 jobs nationally 
and increase annual tax revenues from between $902 million to $2.4 
billion dollars.
  So, it is clear that there are great benefits to be realized from 
cleaning up these sites. For example, in Las Vegas alone, there are 
roughly 30 brownfields sites. It is estimated that cleaning up these 
sits would generate between $1.6 and $4 million per year of additional 
tax revenues, and create an estimated 320 jobs.
  Some think of brownfields cleanup as just an urban issue, but 
brownfields can be found anywhere, even in our most rural areas. Their 
cleanup will have important economic benefits for rural America. For 
example, Hawthorne, a small town in Nevada has limited private lands to 
accommodate the town's growth. To the west of the city, 240 acres of 
valuable space have been used as a landfill for years. Nevada's 
brownfield program completed the first contamination assessment and 
companies are already interested in developing the land.
  Brownfields funding can be used to complete the assessment and 
cleanup of this valuable rural land, allowing the town to grow, provide 
new jobs, and expand its tax base.
  Let me give you another specific example of what we can do with 
brownfields funding. The National Guard Armory site in Las Vegas was 
the first site in the nation to be cleaned up under a loan from EPA's 
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund. This site had been used for a 
variety of military purposes, including chemical storage. The cleanup, 
including removal of over 600 cubic yards of soil contaminated with 
hazardous waste and petroleum hydrocarbons, cost only $50,000, but 
freed the site up for reuse. The city is making the site a community 
center with space for a senior center, a small business center, a 
cultural center and retail stores.
  This bill will provide for many years more such success stories. With 
this bill, we can begin to address in a significant way those 450,000 
sites and help our neighborhoods and business thrive.
  These blighted areas pose threats to human health and the 
environment, contributing to economic depression, crime and job loss. 
They push new development into farmland and green spaces and cause 
sprawl, increasing driving time, traffic, congestion and air pollution.
  The brownfields bill we are introducing today will directly spur such 
cleanup of these sites, in a number of ways.
  It provides critically needed money to assess and clean up abandoned 
and underutilized brownfield sites.
  It encourages cleanup and redevelopment of these properties, by 
providing legal protections for innocent parties, such as contiguous 
property owners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners.
  It provides for funding and expansion of state cleanup programs, and 
provides ``certainty'' for developers, but still ensures protection of 
public health and the environment.
  Creating a public record of brownfield sites and enhances community 
involvement in site cleanup and reuse.
  In conclusion, this bill has the support of a wide variety of groups, 
including environmentalists, mayors, businesses, and the real estate 
community. We are fortunate enough to have an opportunity to do well by 
so many. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this 
legislation this Congress and seeing the payoff in clean sites and new 
jobs in communities across the country.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment, I am pleased to join 
my colleagues in sponsoring the Brownfields Revitalization and 
Environmental Restoration Act--a very important piece of legislation.
  Our nation's industrial history has left us with the unfortunate 
legacy of tens of thousands of abandoned sites that are contaminated 
with hazardous materials.
  Unfortunately, many of these sites are located in low-income, 
minority communities. The result is that this toxic legacy 
disproportionately impacts some of our most vulnerable and disempowered 
populations.
  For many of my constituents in places like Oakland, Anaheim, Long 
Beach, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Stockton these polluted 
areas--or so-called ``brownfields''--are a blight on the community. 
They are dead zones that sit unused or only partially used, sometimes 
posing health hazards, sometimes merely eyesores.
  The idea behind the Brownfields Initiative is that those areas of 
light, or moderate, contamination should be restored for economic 
redevelopment, community use, or made into parks and greenways.
  In Oakland, for instance, an abandoned industrial brownfield site is 
going to be transformed into a large-scale, mixed use development area. 
It will include a pedestrian walkway, retail shops, child care 
facilities, medical care facilities, a senior center, and a branch of 
the Oakland Public Library.
  I'm proud to note that two California sites, in East Palo Alto and 
Los Angeles, have been selected by the Environmental Protection Agency, 
EPA, to be ``Showcase Communities.'' These communities are at the 
cutting edge of the brownfields effort; their experiences will help us 
learn how to bring together federal, state, local, and non-governmental 
interests to address the brownfields problem. They will serve as a 
model for the rest of the Nation.
  While EPA has made important strides in the development of the 
Brownfields Initiative, there is much more than could be done.
  By authorizing increased funding for this program, clarifying some of 
the liability questions, and directing the program to the areas of 
greatest need, this legislation will help expand the scope of this 
program and elevate its visibility in the eyes of the American public.
  This legislation helps us set right some of the mistakes that were 
made in the past. And it illustrates what we have had to learn the hard 
way--that a prosperous economy and a healthy environment go hand in 
hand.
  By cleaning up these contaminated brownfields, we can protect public 
health, while at the same time curbing the devastating impact of urban 
sprawl on our environment.
  Encouraging the clean up of these contaminated properties will also 
mean new jobs and greater economic growth for the communities that need 
it most.
  We owe it to our children to leave them an environment that is 
cleaner and healthier than the one we have inherited. This bill will 
help take us in that direction.

[[Page S1491]]

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-
used commercial or industrial properties where development or expansion 
is hindered by real or perceived environmental contamination. 
Businesses located on brownfields were once the economic foundations of 
communities. Today, brownfields lie abandoned--the legacy of our 
industrial past. These properties taint our urban landscape. 
Contamination, or the perception of contamination, impedes brownfields 
redevelopment, stifles community development and threatens the health 
of our citizens and the environment. Redeveloped, brownfields can be 
engines for economic development. They represent new opportunities in 
our cities, older suburbs and rural areas for housing, jobs and 
recreation. Today, Senator Smith, Senator Reid, Senator Chafee and 
Senator Boxer introduced the Brownfields Revitalization and 
Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I support their efforts to 
address this issue and I will co-sponsor the legislation.
  As cochair of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, I believe 
brownfields redevelopment is one of the most important ways to 
revitalize cities and implement growth management. The redevelopment of 
brownfields, is one fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to 
neglected neighborhoods, cleanup the environment, use infrastructure 
that is already paid for and relieve development pressure on our urban 
fringe and farmlands.
  The State of Michigan is a leader in brownfields redevelopment--
offering technical assistance and grant and loan programs to help 
communities redevelop brownfields. This legislation will compliment 
State and local efforts to successfully redevelop brownfields. The bill 
provides much needed funding to State and local jurisdictions for the 
assessment, characterization, and remediation of brownfield sites. 
Importantly, the bill removes the threat of lawsuits for contiguous 
landowners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners. 
Communities must often overcome serious financial and environmental 
barriers to redevelop brownfields. Greenfields availability, liability 
concerns, the time and cost of cleanup, and a reluctance to invest in 
older urban areas deters private investment. This bill will help 
communities address these barriers to redevelopment. Finally, the bill 
provides greater certainty to developers and parties conducting the 
cleanup, ensuring that decisions under state programs will not be 
second- guessed. Public investment and greater governmental certainty 
combined with private investment can provide incentives for 
redeveloping brownfield properties and level the economic playing field 
between greenfields and brownfields.
  I believe the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
Restoration Act of 2001 will do much to encourage commercial, 
residential and recreational development in our nation's communities 
where existing infrastructure, access to public transit, and close 
proximity to cultural facilities currently exist. America's emerging 
markets and future potential for economic growth lies in our cities and 
older suburbs. This potential is reflected in locally unmet consumer 
demand, underutilized labor resources and developable land that is rich 
in infrastructure. In Detroit, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development estimates that there is a $1.4 billion retail gap (the 
purchasing power of residents minus retail sales). In Flint, HUD 
estimates the retail gap to be $186 million and in East Lansing, $160 
million. The redevelopment of brownfields will help communities realize 
the development potential of our urban communities. It is a critical 
tool for metropolitan areas to grow smarter--allowing us to recycle our 
Nation's land to promote continued economic growth while curtailing 
urban sprawl and cleaning up our environment.
                                 ______