[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3879-S3912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report S. 350 by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 350) 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.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and 
insert in lieu thereof the following:

     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;
       ``(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.

[[Page S3880]]

       ``(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 a site that--
       ``(i) meets the definition of `brownfield site' under 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C); and
       ``(ii)(I) is contaminated by a controlled substance (as 
     defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 802)); or

       ``(II) is 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 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 similar factors as the Administrator 
     considers appropriate to consider for the purposes of this 
     section.
       ``(4) 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) such other similar factors as 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)), excluding the 
     cost of compliance with laws applicable to the cleanup.
       ``(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 
     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) at least annually, complete a 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.

[[Page S3881]]

       ``(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 or nonprofit organizations 
     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--
       ``(1) include a requirement of the National Contingency 
     Plan only to the extent that the requirement is relevant and 
     appropriate to the program under this section, as determined 
     by the Administrator; and
       ``(2) be subject to an agreement that--
       ``(A) requires the recipient to--
       ``(i) comply with all applicable Federal and State laws; 
     and
       ``(ii) ensure that the cleanup protects human health and 
     the environment;
       ``(B) requires that the recipient use the grant or loan 
     exclusively for purposes specified in subsection (b) or (c), 
     as applicable;
       ``(C) 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
       ``(D) 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 or natural resource 
     restoration 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 the 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, or had reason to have, 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.--With respect to a hazardous substance 
     from 1 or more sources that are not on the property of a 
     person that is a contiguous property owner that enters ground 
     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 or natural 
     resource restoration 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 or natural resource restoration at 
     the vessel or facility).
       ``(F) Institutional control.--The person--

[[Page S3882]]

       ``(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 owner, obtain from the owner 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), 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.
       ``(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 preliminary assessment or 
     site inspection; and
       ``(II) after consultation with the State, determines or has 
     determined that the site obtains a preliminary score 
     sufficient for possible listing on the National Priorities 
     List, or that the site otherwise 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.''.

[[Page S3883]]

       (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 
     administrative or judicial 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 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 February 15, 2001.
       ``(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

[[Page S3884]]

     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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that my friend, the chairman of the 
committee, yield for a brief minute.
  Mr. President, we have nine Senators who wish to speak on this 
legislation, and there may be others at a subsequent time. I wonder if 
my friend from New Hampshire would allow us to give a rough idea of 
when people should be here. I know the Senator from Oklahoma, a 
valuable member of the committee, wishes to speak before the chairman, 
and I have no problem with that. I am wondering, how long does the 
Senator from Oklahoma wish to speak?
  Mr. INHOFE. Five minutes.
  Mr. REID. Following that, Mr. President, I wonder if we may have a 
unanimous consent agreement that the Senator from New Hampshire speak 
for up to 20 minutes; the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, 15 minutes; 
Senator Chafee, 15 minutes; Senator Boxer, 15 minutes; Senator Bond, 15 
minutes; Senator Clinton, 15 minutes; Senator Crapo, 15 minutes; and 
Senator Corzine, 15 minutes. That will use about an hour and 20 minutes 
and still leave time for others who wish to come.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me change that to about 7 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Let's make it 10 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. All right.
  Mr. REID. I have failed to list Senator Carper, but we will do him 
after that for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while I was one who opposed S. 350 when it 
was in committee because of some problems that were there that we have 
tried to address, we have gotten a lot of cooperation from the 
committee in the meantime to address the problems. I think S. 350 
contains provisions that would be a positive first step toward 
revitalizing brownfields in this country.
  S. 350 provides developers with moderate assurances for Superfund-
forced cleanups. While some of my concerns over the finality of the 
language remain, I am comforted by the remarks of the chairman and 
ranking member of the committee concerning new information. That is, 
the information referred to in S. 350 pertains to information of the 
highest quality, objectivity, and weight which is acquired after 
cleanup has begun. With this language, I don't think the abuses I was 
concerned about are going to be there. If they are, we will be 
monitoring it.
  The scope of the cleanup finality provision is still of concern. The 
EPA could simply sidestep the bill by using RCRA, the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, or even the Toxic Substances and Control 
Act to force parties to clean up sites. This is one of the concerns we 
tried to address in the committee. I don't think it has been addressed 
to our satisfaction, but at least we are in a position to monitor it.
  It has been the argument of supporters of the legislation that EPA 
has never overfiled on a brownfields site. If the EPA overfiles a State 
cleanup, S. 350 now requires the EPA to notify Congress. I wasn't 
satisfied with just the fact that they had not done this in the past 
because there is always that first time. We will be closely monitoring 
this to make sure that provision stays in the legislation.
  I still have concerns that businesses will not feel adequately 
protected, and, therefore, brownfields may not get cleaned up. In the 
end, the developers and businesses will be the judges of S. 350's 
successes or failures.
  A lot of people forget this and look at the bureaucracy and say: We 
are going to have all this language. I can assure you, Mr. President, 
if we do not have some protection for developers and businesses that 
are willing to bid on cleanup sites, they are not going to be able to 
do it. It does not do any good to pass legislation unless there is 
enough confidence in the business community that they will not be 
abused if they bid on these projects.
  According to the EPA's figures, there are 200,000 sites contaminated 
primarily from petroleum. This is roughly half the approximately 
450,000 brownfields in the United States. During the markup, I had 
concerns that by failing to address RCRA, Congress was neglecting the 
200,000-plus sites that are petroleum-contaminated brown-
field sites in this country. By not addressing these sites in S. 350, 
Congress is preventing almost half the brownfields in this country from 
being cleaned up and developed.
  I insisted Congress must address this issue. I stated that it was not 
right to allow so many brownfields to remain contaminated under this 
program.
  I am proud to say today help is on the way for these sites. The 
Inhofe amendment, which is incorporated into the managers' amendment, 
will take a first major step toward cleaning up petroleum-contaminated 
sites.
  Specifically, the Inhofe amendment, A, allows relatively low-risk 
brown-
field sites contaminated by petroleum or petroleum products to apply 
for brownfields revitalization funding and, B, authorizes $50 million 
to be used for petroleum sites.
  My amendment will allow the large amount of abandoned gas stations 
and other mildly petroleum-contaminated sites all across the Nation to 
be cleaned up and put back into productive use.
  Finally, I still want to work to place a cap on the administrative 
costs set aside by the Federal EPA. A cost cap will ensure States and 
parties seeking to clean up and redevelop brownfields are getting the 
vast majority of the funds for brownfields programs and not just for 
administrative costs.
  EPA has informed us they are currently using approximately 16 percent 
of brownfields funds appropriated on administrative costs. This amount 
is unacceptable. I will be watching very closely to see what can be 
done perhaps in the appropriations process. Senator Bond and some 
others can perhaps propose an amendment to get this cap on and avoid 
excessive administrative costs.
  Over the last several years, the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works has worked very hard on Superfund reform. With S. 350, the 
committee has decided for now to address only brownfields.
  There are a lot of other problems. In the very beginning, I said 
let's not cherry-pick this thing; let's not just address brownfields. 
Let's get into it and look at retroactive liability, natural resource 
damages, joint and several liability, and some of the abuses that have 
taken place in this system.
  I believe we now have the assurance of enough Members that we will go 
ahead with a more comprehensive program and address these other 
problems.

  I thank the chairman and the ranking member and specifically Senators 
Crapo, Bond, and Voinovich who are helping me on some of the issues 
about which I have concerns and also the staff who have spent many 
hours coming up with a bill that I think is acceptable. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Smith is right outside the door. I 
am told that is the case.
  Based on a prior unanimous consent agreement, Senator Smith will 
speak from 11:40 a.m. until 12 o'clock. I will

[[Page S3885]]

speak from 12 to 12:15 p.m. Senator Chafee will speak from 12:15 p.m. 
to 12:30 p.m. Senator Boxer will speak from 12:30 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. 
Senator Bond will speak from 12:45 p.m. to 1 p.m. Senator Clinton will 
speak from 1 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. Senator Crapo will speak from 1:15 p.m. 
to 1:30 p.m. Senator Corzine will speak from 1:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. 
Senator Carper will speak from 1:45 p.m. to 2 p.m.
  If anyone wants to juggle those times, they can contact the Members. 
That is the way it is now.
  Mr. President, while Senator Smith is on his way, I wish to express 
my appreciation to the majority leader. I have been on the floor the 
last 3 days indicating why we did not go to this legislation, and we 
are now considering it.
  I extend my appreciation to Senator Lott for moving forward this very 
important piece of legislation. It is something that is long overdue, 
years overdue, but it is something that could not be more timely to 
clean up half a million sites and do a lot of good things about which 
we will hear in the next couple of hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am very proud to be 
debating the brownfields legislation, known as the Brownfields 
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, or S. 350. It 
is a bill we have worked on for a long time--many years actually. It is 
exciting to be at this point and to have bipartisan legislation that, 
frankly, we know after we finish the debate is going to pass. That does 
not happen every day in the Senate. So it is exciting.
  I am proud that two-thirds of the Senate, both political parties, are 
cosponsors--68 to be exact. Also, the President supports the bill. If 
we can get the cooperation of the House of Representatives, this will 
pass quickly, and the President will sign it. We are very excited about 
that.
  This bill has the full bipartisan support of all members of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee across the political spectrum.
  Make no mistake about it, in spite of the support the bill has, it 
has not been an easy process. Superfund, so-called, is a very difficult 
subject. That is an issue I have worked on and I know Senator Reid and 
Senator Chafee and others have for many years.
  Ever since I began my service in the Congress, I have tried to reform 
this flawed Superfund law. It has been a bitter battle with a lot of 
differences of opinion as to how we do it, sometimes partisan and 
sometimes regional. But basically on reforming Superfund, other than a 
few short fixes on certain things such as recyclers, we really have not 
accomplished very much in the last 11 years.
  I have always believed we are in need of comprehensive Superfund 
reform to make the program work. I still believe after we pass the bill 
there is a lot to be done. Today we have a chance to do something good. 
It is not comprehensive Superfund reform. Frankly, I am at the point 
now where comprehensive Superfund reform is not going to happen, and 
maybe it should not happen. Maybe we should just move forward on a 
piece-bill basis and do the right thing.

  I was pleased to be joined by the committee's ranking member, the 
Superfund subcommittee chairman and its ranking member, Senators Reid, 
Chafee, and Boxer. I commend all of my colleagues who are present--
Senator Reid, Senator Boxer, Senator Chafee--for their leadership and 
working tirelessly and in good faith in a bipartisan manner. Without 
their cooperation and help, we would not be here today.
  It is always easy to reach agreement on easy issues, but the 
difficult issues, such as some of the issues with which we deal in the 
environment, are not that easy and we have to work hard, respect the 
other side's position, and try to come to a compromise.
  If there is any positive spinoff from a 50/50 Senate, about which so 
much is written and spoken, it is that, even if we do not want to, we 
have to work together because we are not going to pass anything 
meaningful, anything positive. We will not pass anything out of 
committee going anywhere on the floor unless it is bipartisan.

  We may not always agree on how to achieve our goals, but we all share 
the same desire for a safe and healthy environment for all of our 
families and for the future and our future generations. As I have said 
many times, environment should be about the future. It shouldn't be 
about politics of today. It should be about tomorrow and our children. 
Sometimes in the decisions we make we would like to have immediate 
results, but we don't get them. It takes time to see the fruits of our 
labors.
  I think you will see in the brownfields legislation, when it passes, 
the process of cleaning up the old abandoned industrial sites.
  I thank President Bush, as well, and his new EPA administrator, 
Christine Whitman, for unwavering support. When they first took office, 
my very first meeting was with then-Governor Whitman, now Administrator 
Whitman. She gave me her full support and commitment on this issue, as 
did the President. The President stated the brownfields reform is a top 
environmental priority for his administration. It will now pass the 
Senate within the first 100 days of the administration. That is a 
promise made and a promise kept--sometimes rare in politics these days.
  The President recognizes what it means for the environment. I am 
proud the Senate will pass this priority and do it today.
  As former Governors, both President Bush and Administrator Whitman 
understand the importance of cleaning up the sites, and the President 
deserves credit for making this a top priority, as do my colleagues in 
the Senate. Without the support of the President, we would not see this 
legislation become law. To his credit, President Clinton, as well, was 
a supporter of the brownfields bill.
  It has not been easy, but we have worked in good faith. I thank all 
Senators involved for their willingness to work together toward this 
common goal. It is amazing what can be accomplished when we set aside 
the rhetoric and focus on the goal; or, indeed, if we have the 
rhetoric, complete the rhetoric and sit down and get focused on getting 
the job done.
  Last year, the committee was successful in passing good, balanced, 
bipartisan legislation, including estuaries restoration, clean beaches, 
and the most famous of all, the historic Everglades restoration, which 
was a prime project of the Senator from Rhode Island, our distinguished 
father and former colleague, Mr. John Chafee.
  I made a commitment after Senator Chafee's passing that I would, in 
fact, shepherd that bill through the Senate, which we did, and 
President Clinton signed it. It is now law. We will see that great 
natural resource restored.
  Again, it will take time. It will not happen tomorrow. We will not 
see the Everglades restored tomorrow, but we will see it done over a 
period of 10, 20, 30 years. We will not see every brownfield restored 
today after passage of the bill, but we will see industrial site after 
industrial site, abandoned industrial sites all over America, gradually 
become green or restored in a way that they are productive and 
producing tax revenues in the communities across our Nation.
  When you see a brownfield, abandoned site, and you see activity, with 
people working and cleaning it up, and it is looking nice in your 
community, you can reference back to this legislation and know that is 
why it is being done.
  People say, why do you need the legislation? The answer is, under 
current law no one will clean them up. I will discuss the reasons in a 
moment. With brownfields, we have proven we can work together in 
cooperation, as opposed to confrontation, and we can accomplish great 
things. When we talk about all the great issues of the day, whether 
China, the budget, or whatever, brownfields is not exactly something 
that gets a lot of glamour. We had a huge debate on the Ashcroft 
confirmation. That received a lot of publicity. However, down in the 
trenches, these are the kinds of issues that don't get a lot of 
attention. Maybe the trade press follows them. The national press 
doesn't do much. Indeed, sometimes not even your local press, but it is 
important. It is very important to the communities because we will be 
restoring these sites.
  I am hopeful the effort will set the stage for more cooperation and 
also get

[[Page S3886]]

at more of the old Superfund law to pick away and try to reform various 
parts of the bill so we don't need Superfund anymore. We will be 
cleaning up all of these sites as soon as we can.
  We have learned environmental politics delays environmental 
protection. Let me repeat that: Environmental politics delays 
environmental protection. The more we argue about things, the longer it 
takes to get something in place that will bring this to resolution, and 
the resolution would be the cleanup. The expedited cleanup of 
brownfield sites is very important to my constituents in New Hampshire, 
as it is to other constituents in other States. My State helped to 
drive this economy during the industrial age--little old New Hampshire, 
with the mills along the Merrimack. We have more than our share of 
these likely contaminated sites waiting to be turned back into positive 
assets, including abandoned railroad sites, along the railroads, along 
the rivers. Frequently, these are the sites we are talking about. It 
could be Bradford, Keene, Concord, or New Ipswich. This bill will be of 
monumental benefit to not only those towns but many towns all over 
America. This bill will also create opportunities for the development 
of more facilities such as the Londonderry eco-industrial park. Now 
these brownfield sites will turn into industrial parks. Or, indeed, if 
they are not parks, they may very well be ``green'' parks as opposed to 
industrial parks. Again, this bill provides help in that regard.
  If you take an abandoned industrial site and convert it to a good 
commercial site, producing revenues for the community, it enhances the 
community in a beautification way, produces revenue, puts people to 
work. It is a win-win-win. Furthermore, it takes the pressure off of 
green space. We won't go outside of Frankfurt, KY, somewhere and pull 
off acres of land to build an industrial park if we have 10 acres of 
abandoned brownfield sites to bring back and revitalize and use again. 
That is the beauty of the legislation.
  I am proud to help communities all across the Nation. We estimate as 
many as 400,000 to 500,000 brownfield sites exist across America. We 
will see activity now on these sites.
  A brief background on the bill. On March 8, the Environmental and 
Public Works Committee reported S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization 
and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. There were a few dissenting 
votes, but we worked with those individuals who had concerns and the 
Members now have been able to reconcile those differences. As far as I 
know, we have a totally united front. That is a tribute to every member 
of that committee, on both sides, a tribute to the staffs of the 
members working hard to address the concerns to come out with a totally 
unified effort on a bipartisan bill.

  This is a strong bill. It deserves the support of the full Senate, 
not only the 68 cosponsors but the other 32 out there, as well.
  How is S. 350 better than current law? That is the issue. Current law 
is what it is and we are now cleaning up sites. How do we improve it? 
Simply stated, our bill provides an element of finality that does not 
exist today in current law. While allowing for Federal involvement 
under specific conditions, current law allows EPA to act whenever there 
is a release or a threatened release. Again, current law allows EPA to 
act whenever there is a release or threatened release.
  This bill changes that requirement, ups the ante a little bit, and 
provides four things: One, EPA to find that ``the release or threatened 
release may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public 
health, welfare or the environmnent'' and after taking into 
consideration response activities already taken, ``additional response 
actions are likely to be necessary to address, prevent, limit, or 
mitigate the release or threatened release.
  We put some conditions on there for the EPA's finding.
  We also find that the action should come at the request of the State 
if we need to come back.
  Third, contamination may have migrated across a State line.
  Fourth, there may be new information to emerge after the cleanup that 
results in the site presenting a threat.
  That is not all our bill does. It also authorizes $200 million in 
critically needed funds to assess and clean up brownfield sites as well 
as $50 million to assist State cleanup programs. This is more than 
double the level of funding currently expended on the EPA brownfield 
program.
  I also want to point out this is not about only Federal dollars. The 
Federal dollars, the $200 million we are talking about here, are 
nowhere near enough money to clean up 500,000 brownfield sites. What 
this does is it limits the liability and brings us closer to finality 
in cleanup so we can now get contractors to go on these sites. They can 
get the insurance, they can take the risk, and they are not going to be 
held accountable if a hot spot or some other problem that was not their 
fault occurs several years down the road. That has been the problem to 
date. They cannot do it because they will be held liable so they say, 
fine, we are not going to go on the site and clean it up and take the 
risk.
  If a contractor comes onto a site, he is responsible. If he does what 
he is supposed to do, follows the plans as he is supposed to, cleans it 
up and does it in good faith and we find something later, he is not 
accountable. That is why this bill will go so far toward moving us in 
the right direction, getting these sites cleaned up.
  Individuals and towns and property owners will now invest in cleaning 
up these sites. Banks will lend money. There are millions and millions 
of dollars--tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions--that will be 
used now from the private sector to clean up these sites, far beyond 
the $200 million we are talking about in this bill.
  This will promote conservation through redevelopment, as I said 
before, as opposed to new greenfield development, and will help to 
revitalize our city centers and create new jobs in the inner cities. It 
is a win for the environment, a win for the economy, a win for the 
Nation, a win for every State, including New Hampshire, and a lot of 
communities with those brownfield sites. It is a giant step forward. We 
now have a chance to move forward on a piece of legislation that will 
make a significant difference in communities across the Nation.
  The real winners are the people who live near these abandoned sites--
sometimes those are minorities--the renewed urban centers that will see 
development and jobs replace blighted, contaminated sites, the local 
communities that will be revitalized, and the green space that is 
preserved. It is a win, win, win, win, win, no matter how you cut it. 
Thanks to the leadership of my colleagues, Senators Reid, Boxer, and 
Chafee, and all my colleagues on the committee, we have a chance to 
enact now, for the first time in all the years I have been in Congress, 
which is 16--the first time to enact meaningful brownfields reform. We 
came out of the gate running. I hope the House will follow suit, 
because if they do, it will be on the President's desk shortly and the 
President can sign this bill before the end of the summer.
  There are numerous interests that support S. 350. I ask unanimous 
consent that several letters of support I have received--and all of us 
have received them--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            National Conference of


                                           State Legislatures,

                                                    March 7, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing on behalf of the National 
     Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) to commend you for 
     your continued commitment to the issue of Brownfields 
     revitalization. Without the necessary reforms to the 
     Comprehensive Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
     (CERCLA), clean up and redevelopment opportunities are lost 
     as well as new jobs, new tax revenues, and the opportunity to 
     manage growth. NCSL's Environment Committee has made this a 
     top priority and we applaud the committee's leadership for 
     designating it as one of the first environmental issues to be 
     brought before the 107th Congress.
       The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
     Restoration Act of 2001 (S 350) provides a welcome increase 
     in federal funding for the assessment and cleanup of state 
     brownfields. We are encouraged by the committee's efforts to 
     provide some level of liability reform for innocent property 
     owners. NCSL would also like to acknowledge the committee's 
     success in garnering broad bi-partisan support on an issue 
     that is of concern in all 50 states.

[[Page S3887]]

       As you continue work on The Brownfields Revitalization and 
     Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, we urge you to 
     reexamine the following:
       The 20% cost share (under CERCLA the cost share is 10%)--
     this could discourage states with tight budgets from 
     participating in the program. NCSL suggests that you maintain 
     the cost share provision of 10% under CERCLA.
       NCSL recognizes that finality has been a contentious issue. 
     NCSL acknowledges that the bill provides relief from 
     Superfund liability, but we urge the committee to reexamine 
     the power of the Administrator with a view towards according 
     the states the appropriate deference prior to initiation of 
     an enforcement action.
       Additions to the National Priorities List--NCSL supports 
     the listing of a facility only after the Administrator 
     obtains concurrence from the Governor of the respective 
     state.
       We appreciate the efforts of the chief sponsors of S. 350 
     and the subcommittee to bring forward a bill to further 
     advance brownfields cleanup and redevelopment. We look 
     forward to working with you on this issue. For additional 
     information, please contact Molly Stauffer in NCSL's 
     Washington, D.C. office at (202) 624-3584 or by email at 
     [email protected].
           Sincerely,
                                       Representative Joe Hackney,
     Chair, NCSL Environment Committee.
                                  ____

                                                 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.
                                  ____

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

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Ranking Member, Environmental 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 nation's 
     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 tool in local effort to control urban 
     spawl 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 an 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 
     establish the truest federal partnership with the many state, 
     local, and private entities working to renew brownfield 
     sites.
       The Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration 
     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 it provides to tailor funding based on a 
     community's 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 your 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.
                                  ____

                                         American Bar Association,


                                  Governmental Affairs Office,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2001.
     Hon. Robert C. Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the American Bar 
     Association, we write to express our support for the 
     liability reforms contained in S. 350, the ``Brownfield 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001,'' 
     and we urge you and your committee to support these 
     provisions during the markup of the measure scheduled for 
     March 8, 2001. By enacting these reforms, Congress can help 
     to expedite the cleanup and redevelopment of more than 
     450,000 contaminated brownfield sites throughout the country 
     while at the same time breathing new life into the inner 
     cities in which these sites are concentrated.
       As the largest association of attorneys in the United 
     States with over 400,000 members nationwide, the American Bar 
     Association has a strong interest in working with Congress in 
     order to ensure that federal environmental law, including the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``Superfund''), encourages and 
     does not impede the cleanup of brownfields. In an effort to 
     play a meaningful role in this area, the ABA House of 
     Delegates adopted a resolution in 1999 outlining detailed 
     suggestions for encouraging the redevelopment of brownfields, 
     and this resolution and the accompanying background report 
     are enclosed.
       In recent years, brownfields increasingly have reduced the 
     quality of urban life in America. These contaminated 
     properties often lie unused or underutilized for long periods 
     of time largely due to the perceived legal liabilities that 
     confront potential new owners and developers of these 
     properties. While these sites remain idle, employment levels 
     suffer, particularly among disadvantaged communities within 
     the inner city. Often this accelerates urban flight, 
     increases sprawl, and creates the need to carve out yet more 
     space for suburban development, with the related 
     infrastructure needs that such development requires. By 
     encouraging the redevelopment of brownfields, we can 
     revitalize our urban core, preserve open space, conserve 
     resources, and make far better use of public dollars.
       By now, almost all of the states have adopted their own 
     state brownfields programs, including statutes and 
     regulations designed to encourage the voluntary remediation 
     of brownfields. These programs generally set clear cleanup 
     standards that are designed to protect human health and the 
     environment while also taking future site use into 
     consideration. In order to encourage developers to 
     participate in these voluntary cleanup programs, most states 
     also grant liability relief to those who successfully clean 
     up the sites to the states' standards.

[[Page S3888]]

       These programs have been recognized as being among the most 
     successful state environmental programs of the last decade. 
     Through these programs, sites across the country are being 
     cleaned up and redeveloped, creating new jobs and economic 
     opportunities, limiting the development of so called 
     ``greenfields,'' and restoring state and local tax bases. 
     While these programs have met with considerable success, the 
     continuing threat of Superfund liability discourages many 
     developers from buying and then voluntarily cleaning up 
     contaminated property. As a result, many brownfield sites 
     remain idle for extended periods of time, despite the state 
     cleanup programs.
       The ABA supports a number of key provisions contained in S. 
     350, including those provisions that encourage developers to 
     participate in state brownfields cleanup programs. The ABA 
     believes that in order to promote the continued economic use 
     of contaminated properties and reduce unnecessary litigation, 
     Congress should eliminate all Superfund liability for parties 
     who successfully clean up properties pursuant to a state 
     brownfields program, so long as the state programs (1) impose 
     cleanup standards that are protective of human health and the 
     environment; (2) ensure appropriate public notice and public 
     participation; and (3) provide the financial and personnel 
     resources necessary to carry out their programs.
       S. 350 goes a long way towards achieving these aims by 
     preventing the President and the EPA from pursuing 
     enforcement actions against those involved in state 
     brownfields cleanup programs except in certain specific 
     circumstances, such as when a state requests federal 
     assistance, the contamination migrates across state lines or 
     onto federal property, or there is an imminent and 
     substantial endangerment to public health, welfare or the 
     environment so that additional response actions are likely to 
     be necessary. By preventing the EPA from intervening in state 
     cleanups except in these limited situations, S. 350 will 
     encourage developers and other parties to participate in 
     state cleanup programs and bring brownfields back into 
     productive use by granting greater ``finality'' to these 
     programs.
       The ABA also supports those provisions in S. 350 that would 
     grant Superfund liability exemptions to certain types of 
     innocent parties, including bona fide prospective purchasers 
     who do not cause or worsen the contamination at a brownfields 
     site and innocent owners of real estate that is continguous 
     to the property where the hazardous waste was released. The 
     ABA favors comprehensive reform of Superfund, including the 
     elimination of joint and several liability in favor of a 
     ``fair share'' allocation system in which liability is 
     allocated based upon each party's relative contribution to 
     the harm. Until Congress enacts comprehensive reform 
     legislation, however, the ABA believes that truly innocent 
     parties, including those covered by S. 350, should be 
     released from potential Superfund liability. These reforms 
     are consistent with the principle that ``polluters should 
     pay,'' but only for the harm that they cause and not for the 
     harm caused by others. Innocent parties who have neither 
     caused nor worsened environmental hazards should not be 
     subject to liability under Superfund, and S. 350 furthers 
     this important principle.
       The ABA has been a consistent advocate of legislation that 
     would expedite the cleanup of brownfields and Superfund 
     sites, reduce litigation, and promote fairness to all 
     parties, and the liability reforms contained in S. 350 make 
     significant strides towards achieving these goals. For these 
     reasons, we urge you to support these reforms during the full 
     committee markup scheduled for March 8.
       Thank you for considering the views of the ABA on these 
     important matters. If you would like more information 
     regarding the ABA's positions on these issues, please contact 
     our legislative counsel for environmental law matters, Larson 
     Frisby, at 202/662-1098.
           Sincerely,
     Robert D. Evans.
                                  ____



                             American Institute of Architects,

                                 San Francisco, CA, March 2, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the 67,000 members of the 
     American Institute of Architects (AIA). I am writing to 
     commend you on the introduction of the Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Amendments Act 
     of 2001. This measure, S. 350, demonstrates your commitment 
     and leadership in keeping the brownfields redevelopment issue 
     at the forefront of the national agenda. The AIA endorses 
     this important measure since it offers practical solutions to 
     the key issues, including liability reform and financing 
     options. It is important for Congress to pass meaningful 
     brownfields redevelopment legislation this year. Superfund 
     reform issues should not be allowed to delay passage of S. 
     350.
       As you know, there are brownfields problems in nearly every 
     community in the United States. If enacted, your bill would 
     offer thousands of communities the flexibility to access 
     grants or loan capitalization funds. Thus, S. 350 recognizes 
     that one size does not fit all and offers user-friendly 
     solutions that communities desperately need. Passage of S. 
     350 will stimulate and rejuvenate the economic development 
     components of cities. Thus, it would better integrate some 
     state and local environmental and economic development 
     programs.
       Liability reform is clearly at the heart of a successful 
     brownfields proposal. Your measure provides protection for 
     innocent landowners and for those whose property may have 
     been contaminated through no fault of their own. Architects 
     and other members of the private sector are keenly aware that 
     these provisions are needed if progress is to occur at the 
     estimated 500,000 brownfields sites nationwide.
       For your review and for inclusion in the Committee record, 
     I have enclosed a copy of a chapter entitled ``The New Market 
     Frontier: Unlocking Community Capitalism Through Brownfields 
     Redevelopment'' from the American Bar Association's book, 
     Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping 
     Contaminated Property, which shows architects in three case 
     studies providing practical solutions to brownfields 
     problems. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of a recent AIA 
     publication ``Communities by Design,'' which demonstrates the 
     value of good design.
       Finally, the AIA welcomes the opportunity of working with 
     you and your staff so that S. 350 advances and is signed into 
     law during the 107th Congress. If you need further assistance 
     contact Dan Wilson, senior director, Federal Affairs at (202) 
     626-7384.
           Sincerely,

                                              Gordon H. Chong,

                                      Chairman, Government Affairs
     Advisory Committee.
                                  ____



                          American Society of Civil Engineers,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2001.
     Hon. Robert Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: The American Society of Civil Engineers 
     (ASCE), which represents 126,000 civil engineers in private 
     practice, academia and government service, respectfully 
     requests your support for passage of S. 350, the Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001.
       We urge you to contact the Senate leadership to request 
     that the bill be brought to the floor as soon as possible.
       ASCE advocates legislation that would eliminate statutory 
     and regulatory barriers to the redevelopment of 
     ``brownfields,'' lands that effectively have been removed 
     from productive capacity due to serious contamination. These 
     sites, properly restored, aid in the revival of blighted 
     areas, promote sustainable development, and invest in the 
     nation's industrial strength.
       As you are aware, the current brownfields program was 
     established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 
     1993 under the Superfund program. That program, which has 
     expanded to include more than 300 brownfields assessment 
     grants (most for $200,000 over 2 years) totaling more than 
     $57 million, now needs to be placed on a sound statutory 
     footing in order to ensure future success.
       ASCE considers the program vital because we support limits 
     on urban sprawl to achieve a balance between economic 
     development, rights of individual property owners, public 
     interests, social needs and the environment. Community growth 
     planning based on the principles of sustainable development 
     should give consideration to the public needs, to private 
     initiatives and to local, state and regional planning 
     objectives.
       Moreover, revitalized brownfields would reduce the demand 
     for the undeveloped land. Full provision of public 
     infrastructure and facilities redevelopment must be included 
     in all growth initiatives and should be made at the lowest 
     appropriate level of government.
       We believe that a targeted brownfields restoration program 
     should take into account site-specific environmental exposure 
     factors and risk based on a reasonable assessment of the 
     future use of the property.
       To ensure a uniform and protective cleanup effort 
     nationally, we would hope that S. 350 also would require 
     minimum criteria for adequate state brownfields programs. 
     ASCE believes the states should be required to demonstrate 
     that their programs satisfy minimum restoration criteria 
     before a bar to federal enforcement would apply.
       We support systems to ensure appropriate public 
     participation in state cleanups or provide assurance through 
     state review or approval that site cleanups are adequate.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Robert W. Bein,
     President.
                                  ____



                                    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

[[Page S3889]]

     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 toward its enactment.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Alan Front,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____

                                      Building Owners and Managers


                                    Association International,

                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of commercial real estate 
     professionals nationwide, I am writing to ask for your 
     support, before the full Senate, of S. 350--the Brownfields 
     Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. The 
     Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International 
     and its 18,000 members believe that this bill provides 
     Congress its best opportunity to improve our nation's 
     remediation efforts in 2001.
       Thanks to the efforts of a dedicated collection of 
     senators, the Senate now has a bipartisan piece of 
     legislation that would generate improved liability 
     protections, enhanced state involvement and increased federal 
     cleanup funding. Adoption of S. 350 would have an immediate 
     and dramatic impact on reducing the 400,000 brownfields sites 
     across America.
       As the Environment and Public Works Committee has forwarded 
     this legislation out of committee, we look for your support 
     in securing its approval by the full Senate. We ask for your 
     assistance in bringing this bill to the floor and achieving 
     its passage early in 2001. If you have any questions or 
     concerns, please contact Rick Sheridan at (202) 326-6338.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard D. Baier,
     President, BOMA International.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Realtors,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Robert Smith,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: 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 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.
                                  ____

                                                Institute of Scrap


                                   Recycling Industries, Inc.,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2001.
     Hon. Robert C. Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and 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 borwnfields 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.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Before I close, I take a moment, as we 
usually do, to recognize some of the staff who have worked tirelessly 
on this legislation. It has not been easy. Sometimes we go home for the 
weekend or go back to our States and staffs are here working through 
these issues.
  I commend my own Department of Environmental Services, Phil O'Brien 
and Mike Wimsatt, for their tireless work and input into this process; 
from Senator Chafee's office--I am sure he will want to thank his own 
staff--Ted Michaels; from Senator Reid's staff, Lisa Haage, Barbara 
Rogers, and Eric Washburn--we appreciate all your help; Sara Barth from 
Senator Boxer's office; Louis Renjel from Senator Inhofe's office; 
Catherine Walters of Senator Voinovich's staff; and Gabrielle Tenzer 
from Senator Clinton's staff; and from the EPA, Randy Deitz and Sven 
Kaiser. Last but not least, my good committee staff: David Conover, 
Chelsea Maxwell, Marty Hall, and Jim Qualters. I thank them for a lot 
of effort, a lot of hard work in working together.
  Of course, there are many more who deserve thanks.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Phil Gramm of Texas be 
added as a cosponsor of the bill, which will get us up to 69.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I join with my friend from New Hampshire in 
expressing appreciation to the people who have worked to get this bill 
to the point it is. He has certainly been gracious in extending 
appreciation to my staff. Lisa Haage, Barbara Rogers, and Eric Washburn 
have done excellent work. I also thank, as he has, the hard-working 
staff of the committee: David Conover, Chelsea Maxwell, Marty Hall, and 
Ted Michaels of Senator Chafee's office, who has done such an 
outstanding job working with Sandra Barth of Senator Boxer's office. 
Without this good staff, we would not be at the point we are.
  I also want to take a minute to express my appreciation to the 
Senator from New Hampshire. I worked with the Senator from New 
Hampshire on the very volatile, difficult Select Committee On MIA/POWs. 
For one intense year we worked on that. That is where I first got to 
know the Senator from

[[Page S3890]]

New Hampshire. I recognize how strongly he feels about issues.
  Then I had the good fortune of being able to work with him on the 
Ethics Committee. He was the lead Republican, I was the lead Democrat 
on the committee for I don't know how long--it was a long time--until 
he got his chairmanship of this committee.
  I have found him to be a person who understands the institution and 
understands the importance of people being moral and living up to the 
ethical standards that are important for this institution. I may not 
always agree with him on issues, but I agree with him as a person. He 
is one of the finest people with whom I have ever dealt. So I have the 
utmost respect for him, how he has handled this committee.
  For 17 days I was chairman of this committee. The treatment I 
received while chairman, and while ranking member, has been 
outstanding. Senator Bob Smith is a good person and somebody of whom 
the citizens of the State of New Hampshire should be proud.

  I have spoken on this bill for 3 days now, expressing my desire to 
have it considered. It is here now. I already said I appreciate Senator 
Lott bringing it before the Senate.
  I have been talking about Senator Smith. I also want to talk about 
the ranking member of the subcommittee who has been responsible for 
bringing us to this point, and that is Senator Barbara Boxer. Senator 
Boxer and I came to the House together in 1982. We have worked together 
for all these years. I have tremendous admiration for Barbara Boxer. 
She is someone who believes strongly in the issues. I have to say, she 
has done great work for this country on exposing military fraud and 
military incompetence. But the best work she has done, in my opinion, 
has been in dealing with the environment. So as a member of this 
committee that I have worked on since I have been in the Senate, she 
has been an outstanding member. She has run the subcommittee very well.
  An outstanding example is how she has been able to reach out to 
Lincoln Chafee, who is a very able member of this committee. I had the 
good fortune of serving in my time in the Senate with his father. I can 
say John Chafee would be very proud of Lincoln for the work he has done 
on this committee. This was John Chafee's committee. He was the 
chairman, he was the ranking member of it. I cannot say more than that 
John Chafee would be very proud of his son for the work he has done on 
this committee.
  As Senator Smith has indicated, this is an important piece of 
legislation. It has now 69 cosponsors. It was reported out of committee 
by a 15-3 vote. The staff has worked very hard to make sure the 
problems people had with the legislation were resolved prior to it 
coming to the floor--and most of those have been. That is the reason we 
are working now on a specific time agreement. We are going to vote on 
this matter around 2 o'clock this afternoon.
  Members of the Environment and Public Works staff have worked hard. 
Members of this committee worked hard to get the legislation to this 
point. I have been extremely impressed with the new members of this 
committee. Senator Corzine and Senator Clinton have worked extremely 
hard, as has Senator Carper, to get us where we are. They are going to 
come later today, as the unanimous consent agreement indicates, and 
speak on their own behalf.
  As I have said for 3 days, there are 500,000 sites from Kentucky to 
Nevada, waiting to be cleaned up. About 600,000 people will be put to 
work on these projects.
  This will create local revenues of almost $2.5 billion.
  This is an important bill. It provides critically needed money to 
assess the cleanup of abandoned and underutilized brownfield sites. It 
will create jobs. It will increase tax revenues and create parks and 
open space. It will encourage cleanup and provide legal protection for 
parties. It provides funding for enhancement of cleanup programs.
  The managers' amendment before us today does several additional 
things that were not in the reported bill. It further clarifies the 
coordination between the States and the EPA. This was an issue raised 
by Senator Voinovich. I told him before the full committee that we 
would work to resolve his problems. We did that.
  The managers' amendment provides clarification for cities and others 
in purchasing insurance for brownfield sites. That is also an important 
addition to this legislation.
  It also provides for an additional $50 million per year for abandoned 
sites which are contaminated by petroleum. There was some concern that 
this may not have been covered in the original legislation. That has 
been resolved.
  Corner gas stations: A lot of times we find people simply stay away 
from them. These corner gas stations are located at very essential 
sites in downtown areas. We are trying to revitalize them. This 
addition in the managers' amendment will do a great deal to resolve 
that issue.
  I am pleased we were able to work out the provisions so these 
numerous sites can also be addressed.
  There was a provision requested by Senators Inhofe and Crapo. They 
felt very strongly about this. I am pleased we were able to agree on 
that. It will be an important and critical part of this legislation.
  This amendment also provides a provision for areas with a high 
incidence of cancer and disease. It will give special consideration in 
making grant decisions regarding children. This was pushed very 
strongly by Senator Clinton. I am grateful for her input. These 
provisions grew out of the amendment discussed in the markup of the 
original bill sponsored by Senator Clinton.
  I also want to add Senators Corzine and Boxer. But it is supported by 
a broad bipartisan group of Members.
  This amendment also increases citizen participation by adding 
citizens' rights in requesting sites to be considered under State 
programs. This is intended to ensure the beginning of the process so 
that States can benefit from input from citizens who may be aware of 
additional sites needing attention and who can help identify additional 
reuse and redevelopment opportunities.
  All of these changes have been carefully considered for providing 
additional improvements to the bill. Moreover, they collectively 
represent the same delicate balance as the underlying bill. It also 
complements the needs of real estate communities, environmental areas, 
mayors, and other local government officials, land and conservation 
groups, and the communities that are most directly affected by these 
sites.
  This bill is balanced. It is unique. It is bipartisan. It sets an 
example for the Senate in the months to come.
  This brownfields legislation is not just an urban problem. It also is 
very important to rural communities throughout America. For example, 
brownfields money was granted to Mineral County to do a cleanup. It is 
a very rural site. It was damaged by the largest ammunition dump during 
the war. It is run now as an ammunition dump by the Army. But there 
are lots of problems there. We have a 240-acre brownfield site set for 
cleanup. After it is finished, we are confident that a golf course can 
be created for this very rural community which will add recreational 
activities.

  An existing loan program in Las Vegas has already been used to fund 
the cleanup of an old armory site, which will create jobs. It will now 
be a home to a senior center, a small business incubator, a cultural 
center, and retail stores.
  I want to see many more examples of reclaiming these abandoned, 
contaminated lands in Nevada and across the country. This bill provides 
funds to accomplish it.
  The Presiding Officer is a valuable member of the committee.
  I have already spoken on a number of occasions about Senator 
Voinovich's contribution to this legislation. It has been significant.
  I reserve the remainder of my time for Senator Torricelli. I yield to 
my friend from Rhode Island who has done such a magnificent job working 
on this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of S. 350, 
the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 
2001. This bill has won the support of the Bush administration, dozens 
of organizations, and 68 co-sponsors in the Senate. Today, the Senate 
has the opportunity to pass this bipartisan, pro-environment and pro-
economic development bill.
  Brownfields are the legacy of our nation's industrial heritage. A 
changing

[[Page S3891]]

industrialized economy, the migration of land use from urban to 
suburban and rural areas, and our nation's strict liability 
contamination laws have all contributed to the presence of abandoned 
industrial sites. With more than 450,000 brownfield sites nationwide, 
we must begin to reclaim those lands, clean up our communities, and 
discontinue the practice of placing new industrial facilities on open, 
green spaces.
  As a former mayor, I understand the environmental, economic, and 
social benefits that can be realized in our communities from 
revitalizing brownfields. While the environmental and social benefits 
can seem obvious, only a mayor understands the continuing fiscal 
expense to our nation's municipalities of the hundreds of thousands of 
pieces of prime real estate that have dropped from the tax rolls.
  Enactment of this legislation 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; neighborhoods can be 
invigorated; new homes can be built, and community character will be 
restored.
  S. 350 enjoys broad bipartisan support. Not only is it supported by 
the Bush administration, the bill's predecessor was supported by the 
Clinton administration last session. The bill is strongly supported by 
the nation's mayors, state elected officials, the real estate industry, 
open space advocates, business groups, and environmental organizations. 
Rarely do we see these organizations come together on the same side of 
an issue. This high level of support is testimony to the bipartisan 
nature of the legislation. It demonstrates that we can forge sound 
legislation, and balance the needs of the environment and the economy 
if we come to the table with open minds and good intentions.
  I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee for his leadership on this issue, Senator 
Smith. His tireless efforts over that time have certainly paved the way 
for this legislation. I also would like to extend my appreciation to 
Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator Boxer for their commitment to this 
issue and the bipartisan process which has proven so successful. In 
addition, let me thank the staff that has worked so hard on this bill: 
David Conover, Chelsea Maxwell, and Marty Hall of Senator Smith's 
staff, Lisa Haage of Senator Reid's staff, Sara Barth of Senator 
Boxer's staff, and Ted Michaels of my staff.
  The issue of brownfields has been discussed for nearly a decade. 
While I was mayor of Warwick, my fax machine constantly fed me alerts 
from the U.S. Conference of Mayors seeking my support for brownfields 
reform. With this legislation today, we have the opportunity to protect 
the environment, strengthen local economies, and revitalize our 
communities. I urge each of my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 350 
and give each mayor across the country the benefit of the full 
potential of their real estate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of the 
Senator from Rhode Island for a moment, I thank the Senator so much for 
his leadership on this issue. It has meant so much to us to have it and 
that of Senator Smith. Senator Reid and I are most grateful. I think we 
have a team that is very good for the environment. When we are 
together, it is a real winner because we can reach out to colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle from the entire spectrum. So I just want to say 
thank you.
  I say to the Senator, as much as I miss your father, whom I adored, I 
must say that it is wonderful to have you here and following in his 
``green'' footsteps.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am here to say that this bill, S. 350, 
the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act, is a 
tremendously important issue for this country and for my constituents.
  I truly believe if we look around the country, it is an extremely 
important issue to everyone. Why? Because we have so many acres of land 
around the country that have been contaminated with low-level hazardous 
waste. They do not fit the definition of a Superfund site, but they are 
expensive to clean up, and local communities really do need our help.
  I want to show you an example of a successful brownfields 
restoration. This photograph is of a site in Emeryville, CA, that 
hosted a steel manufacturing plant for over 100 years. In the early 
1990s, it was shut down, the buildings were demolished, and the area 
was left empty and desolate. You can see from the photograph what a 
horrible eyesore it was to the community. And, by the way, this site is 
along a major freeway, so everyone saw it. It gave the impression of a 
community that was simply going downhill.
  The next picture I will show you is what happened when the State got 
together with the IKEA company and worked together to clean up the 
site.
  In 1997, the State came to this agreement with the original owners of 
the site and with IKEA to restore and redevelop the area. Now the site 
holds 280,000 square feet of commercial retail space. The project has 
created 300 new, permanent jobs for the community. Now the site 
generates roughly $70 million in annual sales.
  There are not too many things in this Chamber that we can do that has 
such clear-cut benefit. Clean up the environment and you make an area 
much nicer to look at. And then you can develop it and bring jobs to 
the site.
  So if anyone questions the need for this brownfields legislation, I 
would welcome them to, again, look at these before-and-after pictures. 
Here it is after; here it is before. It is a pretty clear picture.
  I am so proud of the bipartisan cooperation that occurred in getting 
the bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee. The broad 
support, from a variety of diverse interests, as well as the 
cosponsorship of over 60 Senators, is a good indication that the time 
has come to pass this brownfields legislation.
  I understand that even our colleagues who have problems with the bill 
are now supporting it. I think this is a tribute to them for being open 
minded about it, and a tribute to our chairman, Chairman Smith, and our 
ranking member, Harry Reid, for working with our colleagues.

  I want to talk a little bit about the brownfields in my home State of 
California, the largest State in the Union, with 34 million people. The 
economy of my State would be considered the sixth largest economy in 
the world. So it seems to me that whenever there are problems in the 
country, of course, we have more of those problems in my State. And 
when good things are happening, we have more of the good things.
  This is one of the problems. So let's talk about it. There are 
estimated to be hundreds, if not thousands, of brownfield sites in 
California. We have heard nationwide estimates of 400,000 to 600,000 
brownfield sites. We have thousands of sites in California because some 
industries have left the State with a dangerous legacy of 
contamination.
  This bill will serve as a catalyst for cleanup because it provides 
funding for grants and revolving loan funds to assist our States, our 
local communities, and our tribal governments to do the assessments 
first. In other words, what is the problem? What is going on? What is 
it going to cost to clean it up? And how is the best way to clean it 
up?
  This bill fills a gap. As I said before, Superfund covers our 
Nation's most hazardous sites. We really did not have a way to approach 
the less hazardous sites.
  I want to talk about how happy I am that this bill includes my 
proposal to protect children. Under S. 350, funding will be prioritized 
for brownfields that disproportionately impact the health of children, 
pregnant women, or other vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. 
This is very important.
  Why do I say that? Because children are not small adults. I have said 
this often. I am a small adult. But children are not small adults. They 
are more sensitive than adults to the health

[[Page S3892]]

threats posed by hazardous waste, even the kinds we call low level. 
Why? Because their bodies are changing, and they are developing. 
Healthy adults can tolerate higher levels of pollutants than children.
  In recognition of this, the bill ensures that children, and others 
who are particularly vulnerable, will be given special priority for 
funding under this bill. So we are going to look at these sites. If it 
is a site where children play, where children go, where the elderly go, 
where people who are vulnerable go, those sites will be priority sites.
  The bill also gives priority to cleanups in low-income and minority 
communities because, unfortunately, we have seen a lot of the 
environmental injustice in this country where brownfield sites are 
disproportionately located in low-income and minority communities, 
certainly in places such as Oakland, Los Angeles, and Sacramento.
  So we have a situation where the brownfields are most prevalent in 
communities that are least able to deal with them. And the more 
brownfield sites that are in a community, the lower the chance that the 
community can improve its economic plight. It is a horrible cycle of 
poverty.
  Let's take this site shown in the photograph. This site was in a very 
low-income community, and no one had the resources. And a company such 
as IKEA, who eventually came to this site, did not want to go to this 
site because there was no one to go to the store. You would have a 
situation where the site could sit vacant for years and years and 
years. It contributes to the cycle. You can never get out of the cycle.
  So by saying this kind of a situation in a low-income community would 
be a priority, we will give an economic stimulus to those communities. 
I am very pleased about that.
  The last issue that I believe very strongly about is the issue of 
sites that were contaminated because there was illegal manufacturing of 
a controlled substance there. This may sound very odd. So let me 
explain what I mean.
  In California, we have a terrible problem from the production of 
methamphetamine. It turns out that this terribly dangerous drug is not 
only illegal, not only does it destroy people--destroy people--but the 
byproduct of methamphetamine production is a toxic stew of lye, 
hydriodic acid, and red phosphorus. These elements threaten the 
groundwater and agricultural lands of the Central Valley and elsewhere 
in California where these secret methamphetamine labs are sited.
  I show you a picture of one abandoned lab where you can see these 
containers with all the chemicals that were left on the site.
  This is another picture of an abandoned meth site. We can see what it 
looks like, what a disaster it is when these criminals leave and then 
suddenly the owners of the land who had no idea this was happening are 
left with this horrible contamination. We were able to include relief 
for these farmers. I will talk about that in a minute.
  I will take a moment to talk more about these methamphetamine labs. 
In California alone, there were 277 secret drug labs that were raided 
in 1990. In 1998, there were over 1,000 of these clandestine drug labs. 
The State is doing its best to address the problem as well as the 
larger brownfields problem. They are trying to do it, but it is very 
hard to do it alone. We have to have everyone helping. This bill will 
provide invaluable assistance for the cleanup of meth sites and other 
brownfields, which is another reason I am such a strong supporter of 
the legislation.
  This bill includes liability relief for innocent parties. These 
innocent parties are people who are interested in cleaning up the 
brownfield site, but they are afraid to get involved because they may 
become liable for somebody else's mess. Our bill makes it clear that 
innocent parties will not be held liable under Superfund for the work 
they do on a brownfield site. This provision alone should help reduce 
the fear of developers and real estate interests, and it should lead to 
more cleanups. This provision is certainly a strong reason that a 
variety of business and real estate interests are strong supporters of 
the bill. They want to come in; they want to clean up the sites; but 
they don't want to now become held liable for past problems and then be 
hauled into court on a Superfund case.
  However, I do believe very strongly that the polluter must pay. Our 
bill does not protect people who are responsible for cleanup under 
Superfund or any other statute. If you make a mess, if you despoil the 
environment, you still will be held responsible for cleaning it up. We 
maintain ``the polluter pays'' principle that underpins many of our 
hazardous waste statutes.
  The committee considered and rejected efforts to waive the 
application of other statutes, such as RCRA and TSCA, to these 
brownfield sites. It was too complicated to try to amend other 
statutes, and I appreciate the fact that our foursome stuck together 
during these amendments because it would have opened up a can of worms. 
What we did was we kept this narrow. We kept it on the issue of 
brownfields. We kept out extraneous issues. Again, I thank my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation on that.
  Our bill encourages States to take the lead on brownfield sites. It 
does set some limitations on EPA's enforcement authority under 
Superfund for sites covered by this bill. We believe this is important 
in gaining strong support. I am comfortable with this feature because 
there are a number of safeguards that ensure that a secure Federal 
safety net remains. These safeguards are an essential part of the 
compromise that is the heart of the bill. They ensure that EPA can 
apply its full Superfund enforcement authority under a variety of 
circumstances.
  Most important to me--and it was a tough debate that we had--was the 
guarantee that EPA could intervene if a site threatens to cause 
immediate and substantial endangerment to the public's health or 
welfare or to the environment. I believe this language guarantees that 
if a State's oversight of a cleanup fails to protect our citizens or 
our environment, the Federal Government can intervene. We are clear 
that we want the State to be responsible, but if there is a problem 
which will result in an immediate threat to people's health, the EPA 
can enter. It was a careful balance that went into crafting that 
provision as well as the rest of the bill.
  Together I believe we have produced a sensible and balanced bill that 
will help encourage the recycling of brownfield sites that now sit 
unused around the Nation.
  In closing, one more time I will show our success story that happened 
in Emeryville. First, let's show the before picture again. This is what 
we are talking about, sites that look like this, sites that are 
harmful. People don't want to go on them. People are afraid of them. 
There is no economic development in the middle of our urban areas. Then 
when we work together, we can bring business interests to the site and 
we start to see people use the site again. The site will bring in 
revenues.
  I thank my colleagues for all their hard work, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for too many years comprehensive Superfund 
reform has been blocked by partisan rhetoric and fear-mongering. Even 
though the general public, government agencies, and federal bureaucrats 
know that the Superfund program is broken, proposed changes were called 
stealth attacks, roll-backs, and letting polluters off the hook. Those 
characterizations were not accurate, but they were effective in 
protecting one of the most troubled and inefficient programs in the 
Federal Government from meaningful reform.
  For more than 7 years we have been unable to reach agreement on 
Superfund reauthorization so the Environment and Public Works Committee 
decided to take a smaller, targeted approach. So today we are here 
considering S. 350, the Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental 
Restoration Act.
  There is general agreement that we need to address the issue of 
Brownfields. Across the country, brownfields are blights on the 
landscape, but because of liability concerns, too often clean-up and 
redevelopment opportunities are lost. The loss of clean-up and 
redevelopment opportunities means the loss of jobs and tax revenues for 
communities and means these sites are not cleaned up.

[[Page S3893]]

  However, even though I will support this bill today, more needs to be 
done.
  Working with my friends and colleagues, specifically Senators Inhofe 
and Crapo, we were able to reach an agreement with the managers of the 
bill to include in the manager's amendment a provision which will 
include petroleum only sites in the brownfields program. It is 
estimated that petroleum only sites make up almost half the brownfield 
sites in the country. How can we pass a brownfields bill that excludes 
half the brownfield sites in the country? Fortunately, agreement was 
reached on this issue.
  I want to go on record that I still have concerns regarding liability 
issues. In my opinion the legislation does not protect developers from 
potential liability and administrative orders under the Toxic Substance 
Control Act. I joined with Senators Inhofe and Crapo in offering an 
amendment during the committee's consideration, but unfortunately it 
was defeated. Opponents argued that EPA has not yet used TSCA or RCRA 
to deal with hazardous materials covered under Superfund so therefore 
it shouldn't be an issue. However, many believe that if the ``front 
door'' of Superfund is closed, EPA will use TSCA or RCRA as a ``back 
door'' to pursue legal action against a developer.
  In addition, it is my opinion that the bill still gives too much 
authority to the EPA over State programs. If we are going to give the 
responsibility to the State, EPA must step back and let the States run 
the programs and EPA must first work with the State before overstepping 
and taking enforcement actions.
  S. 350 is a step in the right direction. However, we must continue 
our efforts to address the liability issues that still remain and we 
must continue efforts to make the overall Superfund program more 
reasonable and workable.
  As we all know, the great environmental progress in this country has 
been made with bi-partisan support, when honest concern for the 
environment and the people outweighed political opportunism. I hope 
that the progress made on brownfields will translate into positive 
movement on the remaining issues.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am grateful for the opportunity today 
to speak about an important piece of environmental legislation, the 
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act. This bill 
enjoys the bipartisan support of 15 of the 18 members of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, and with the additions made in 
the manager's amendment, I hope it will receive widespread support on 
the floor.
  This bill aims to return abandoned, contaminated lots that plague 
nearly every city and town in this country to their past vitality. Once 
upon a time, these 450,000 ``brownfields'' were home to our 
neighborhood gas station, a flourishing textile mill, or a 
manufacturing plant. They were central to the economic well being of 
their communities. Unfortunately, now they lay idle and unproductive, 
spoiling the quality of life in thousands of communities across the 
country. Brownfields lower a community's tax base, encourage urban 
sprawl and loss of open space, and worst of all, threaten to pollute 
local streams and drinking water, endangering human health and 
environmental quality.
  While everyone wishes to see brownfields reintegrated into the 
community, they often remain untouched urban eyesores. Developers fear 
the potential liability risks involved in developing a site laden with 
unknown chemicals. Communities lack the funds to initiate their own 
clean up plans.
  This bill could change all of that. First, it provides much-needed 
funding for brownfields' restoration programs. Second, it offers 
important legal protections that will give developers, private and 
public, the confidence to cleanup these toxic sites. All across the 
country, we see examples of communities successfully restoring 
brownfields sites into vibrant and prosperous enterprises, including in 
my home state of Connecticut.
  With the help of small federal grants and loans, more than two dozen 
cities and towns throughout Connecticut have been able to jump-start 
their plans for environmental remediation and economic development of 
brownfields sites.
  Just last month, I joined in the Grand Opening of a new Harley 
Davidson dealership on a former brownfields site in Stamford, one of 
EPAs Brownfields Showcase Communities. Prior to cleanup, the area was a 
chemical cesspool of abandoned lots contaminated with PCBs, lead, 
arsenic and several other metals. During cleanup, close to 3,000 tons 
of contaminated soil were removed from the site, reducing the risk of 
groundwater contamination and exposure to neighborhood residents. Now 
this enterprise brings new life, a cleaner environment, and new jobs to 
the industrial South End of Stamford.
  The promise of this approach may seem obvious, but the language in 
this bill was not easily agreed. It is the product of over eight years 
of negotiations, debate and finally compromise. So it is with pride 
that I join more than two thirds of my colleagues, Democrat and 
Republican, and dozens of organizations representing a wide range of 
interests, including those of mayors, developers, realtors, insurance 
companies and environmental groups, in supporting this legislation, I 
believe we should all feel a sense of accomplishment and pride--this 
was battle hard won.
  This is a good day for America's communities, especially in the inner 
cities which regrettably are home to many of these urban wastelands. 
But it doesn't have to stay that way. This legislation is a shot in the 
economic arm for towns like Stamford seeking to revitalize their 
neighborhoods for future generations to enjoy. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to support S. 350, 
the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 
2001. This bill will help communities throughout the country identify 
and clean up brownfields, sites where low level contamination has kept 
the land from being developed.
  This bill would help communities in several different ways. By 
providing liability protection and economic incentives to clean up 
contaminated and abandoned industrial sites, this legislation will make 
our communities healthier and reduce environmental threats. By 
returning these sites to productive use, we encourage redevelopment and 
help curb sprawl. This legislation means both new jobs and a cleaner 
environment for Missouri. It shows that a clean environment and a 
strong economy are not in competition, they go hand in hand.
  In Missouri, we have 11 brownfield projects financed in part with 
federal funds, and another 29 projects that are State-financed.
  One example of a successful brownfield project is Martin Luther King 
Business Park in St. Louis, Missouri. The site, which is across the 
street from two schools, was contaminated from a century of metal 
plating and junkyards. Asbestos and high levels of lead were found 
close to the surface. As a result of federally-funded assessments and 
the State's Voluntary Cleanup and Brownfield Redevelopment Programs, a 
developer stepped forward to purchase and cleanup the property. Due to 
these cleanup efforts, a much-needed warehouse/light manufacturing 
facility in the heart of St. Louis opened in 2000, bringing more than 
60 jobs to the area. Construction of an even larger facility is 
scheduled to begin this year after cleanup is complete. This 
development will help to rejuvenate the entire surrounding area. This 
progress was made possible by the federal brownfield grant which 
allowed the City to perform initial environmental assessments. Without 
those assessments, developers are reluctant to even consider such 
properties.
  We have made considerable progress toward making our urban centers 
into places where people want to work and live. Yet we still have more 
than 12,000 abandoned and tax-default properties in St. Louis alone. 
Obviously our work is not done.
  Brownfields are not just an urban problem. A century of lead mining 
has left towns like Bonne Terre, Missouri with contamination from 
mining waste. In Bonne Terre, developers are reluctant to purchase land 
near the mine waste properties being addressed by Superfund because of 
possible contamination. Using federal pilot funds, Bonne Terre is 
working on cleaning up these sites and developing them into a

[[Page S3894]]

122-acre commercial zone and industrial park. The clean up and 
development will bring more jobs to this rural community as well as 
address environmental concerns.
  I anticipate a strong vote in favor of the Brownfields Revitalization 
and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I hope that this vote will 
provide momentum for this legislation as it proceeds to the House of 
Representatives and that it will eventually be signed into law by the 
President.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 350, the 
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I 
compliment the efforts of Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee, and Boxer. They 
have done a great job in moving this legislation forward.
  I was very disappointed that this bill was not enacted last year, it 
represents a lot of hard work and compromise. I think this bill is a 
win-win for the environment, for local communities and for local 
economies. More hazardous waste sites will be cleaned up, and we'll 
have more parks and open space, more economic redevelopment, and more 
jobs. This bill will make cleaning up polluted sites easier by reducing 
the many legal and regulatory barriers to brownfields redevelopment 
while providing much needed cleanup funds.
  The brownfields bill is important for rural areas, not just big 
cities. In Montana, we have hundreds of sites that have been polluted 
by mining, timber processing, railroad work, and other industrial 
activities that were part of our economic development.
  I worked hard on a very similar bill last year, together with many of 
my colleagues. Last year, it was the first bipartisan brownfields bill 
ever introduced in the Senate. I was thrilled to cosponsor the bill 
again this year, under the leadership of Senator Smith and Senator 
Reid. This bill has been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including 
the National Association of Realtors, the Conference of Mayors, and the 
Trust for Public Lands. It represents a hard-won, delicately balanced 
compromise.
  Superfund critics have long argued that the possibility that EPA 
could second-guess state-approved cleanups has discouraged brownfields 
remediation. At the same time, I and others have argued that we need to 
preserve the federal government's ability to use Superfund authorities 
to deal with dangerous situations at sites cleaned up under state 
programs in the rare case in which the cleanup is inadequate and there 
is a threat to human health or the environment.
  The tension between these two views has been one of the major 
obstacles to moving brownfields legislation in the past. This bill 
forges a new compromise on this issue, and it is a good compromise. 
Both sides came to the table and made some important concessions. The 
bill is not perfect, it is not everything I wanted. It is not 
everything some of my colleagues across the aisle wanted, either. But, 
as I have often said, let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the 
good. And this is a good bill that will do good things for the 
environment, for communities, for businesses and for the Nation. These 
sites need to be cleaned up, for the health and well-being of our 
citizens and our environment, and doing nothing is no longer an option.
  Hopefully, two other bills will come to the floor that would expand 
the abilities of the Economic Development Administration and the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development to help local communities 
physically develop and restore brownfields sites to productive use. 
Taken together, S. 350 and these two bills would make up a complete 
brownfields redevelopment package. They will provide critical economic 
and technical assistance to communities during all stages of 
brownfields redevelopment--from an initial site assessment to putting 
the finishing touches on a new apartment building or city park.
  I am happy to hear that the administration has expressed its support 
for S. 350. The brownfields bill is an outstanding example of a 
bipartisan effort to help communities across the nation. I hope we can 
all work together to make sure it is signed into law this year.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up 
and will pass S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
Restoration Act of 2001. I am a strong supporter and advocate of this 
legislation. I commend Senators Smith of New Hampshire, Reid, Chafee 
and Boxer for their tremendous effort to craft strong bi-partisan 
legislation to help our nation's communities. 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.
  As Co-Chair 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 a 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.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on March 12, 2001, the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works filed Senate Report 107-2, to 
accompany S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental 
Restoration Act of 2001. When the report was filed, the cost estimate 
from the Congressional Budget Office was not available. Therefore, I 
ask unanimous consent that the cost estimate be printed

[[Page S3895]]

in the Record to comply with Section 403 of the Congressional Budget 
and Impoundment Act.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                                  U.S. Congress,  


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 350, the 
     Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act 
     of 2001. If you wish further details on this estimate, we 
     will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are 
     Kathleen Gramp (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 
     226-2860; Victoria Heid Hall (for the State and local 
     impact), who can be reached at 225-3220; and Lauren Marks 
     (for the private-sector impact), who can be reached at 226-
     2940.
           Sincerely,
     Dan L. Crippen.
                                  ____


               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

S. 350 Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 
  2001, as reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
                        Works on March 12, 2001


                                SUMMARY

       S. 350 would expand and modify certain programs governed by 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, commonly known as the 
     Superfund Act). The bill would provide a statutory framework 
     for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policies and 
     programs related to brownfield sites and the liability of 
     certain entities under CERCLA. (Brownfields are properties 
     where the presence, or potential presence, of a hazardous 
     substance complicates the expansion or redevelopment of the 
     property.) The bill would authorize the appropriation of $750 
     million over the next 5 years for grants to States and other 
     governmental entities for various brownfield initiatives. 
     Another $250 million would be authorized over the same period 
     for grants to States and Indian tribes for implementing 
     voluntary cleanup programs. Finally, the bill would exempt 
     some property owners from liability under CERCLA under 
     certain terms and conditions.
       Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
     estimates that implementing S. 350 would cost $680 million 
     over the 2002-2006 period. CBO estimates that provisions 
     affecting the liability of certain property owners would 
     reduce net offsetting receipts (a form of direct spending) by 
     $2 million a year beginning in 2002, or a total of $20 
     million over the next 10 years. In addition, the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that enacting this bill 
     would reduce revenues by a total of $24 million over the 
     2002-2006 period and by $110 million over the 2002-2011 
     period. Because S. 350 would affect direct spending and 
     receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
       S. 350 would impose no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
     (UMRA).


                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

       The estimated budgetary impact of S. 350 is shown in the 
     following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
     budget function 300 (natural resources and the environment).

                [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SPENDING SUBJECT TO
         APPROPRIATION
 
Brownfields Spending Under
 Current Law:
  Budget Authority \1\........     92      0      0      0      0      0
  Estimated Outlays...........     89     87     41     14      5      0
Proposed Changes:
  Authorization Level.........      0    200    200    200    200    200
  Estimated Outlays...........      0     10    110    170    190    200
Brownfields Spending Under S.
 350:
  Authorization Level \1\.....     92    200    200    200    200    200
  Estimated Outlays...........     89     97    151    184    195    200
 
  CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Estimated Budget Authority....      0      2      2      2      2      2
Estimated Outlays.............      0      2      2      2      2      2
 
      CHANGES IN REVENUES
 
Estimated Revenues \2\........      0      0      1      4      8     11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2001 level is the amount appropriated for that year for EPA
  grants for brownfields initiatives, including grants to States for
  voluntary programs.
\2\ Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

       For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 350 will 
     be enacted by the end of fiscal year 2001, and that all funds 
     authorized by the bill will be appropriated. Estimated 
     outlays are based on the historical spending patterns for 
     similar activities in the Superfund program.

                   Spending subject to appropriation

       S. 350 would authorize the appropriation of $1 billion over 
     the next 5 years for two grant programs: for brownfield 
     revitalization and for enhancing State programs related to 
     brownfields and other voluntary initiatives. In recent years, 
     the Congress has allocated some of the money appropriated for 
     EPA's Superfund program for such grants; this legislation 
     would provide an explicit statutory authorization for these 
     activities and would authorize specific amounts for fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2006. Provisions limiting the liability of 
     certain property owners could increase the use of 
     appropriated funds to clean up Superfund sites, but CBO 
     estimates that any change in discretionary spending would not 
     be significant in the next 5 years.
       Grant Programs. Title I would authorize the appropriation 
     of $150 million annually for grants to States and other 
     governmental entities to characterize, assess, or cleanup 
     brownfield sites. Remediation grants could be used to 
     capitalize revolving funds or to pay for cleaning up sites 
     owned by public or nonprofit entities. Grants used for 
     remediation would be subject to a matching requirement and 
     could be used to leverage funding from other sources. In 
     addition, title III would authorize $50 million a year for 
     grants to States and Indian tribes to develop or enhance 
     programs pertaining to brownfields or voluntary response 
     programs. These funds also could be used to capitalize 
     revolving funds for brownfield remediation activities.
       Cleanup Costs. Under CERCLA, property owners may be 
     responsible for cleanup activities, even if they did not 
     contribute to the contamination of a Superfund site. Title II 
     would amend CERCLA to limit the liability of certain 
     prospective purchasers of contaminated property after the 
     date of enactment. By reducing the pool of potentially 
     responsible parties, the ``prospective purchaser'' provisions 
     in section 202 could reduce the number of Superfund sites 
     that can be cleaned up in a timely fashion by private 
     entities. This could, in turn, increase the number of sites 
     needing full or partial Federal funding for cleanup 
     activities.
       For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill's prospective 
     purchaser provisions would not affect discretionary spending 
     for several years because only properties purchased after the 
     date of enactment would be exempt from liability. The cost 
     eventually could be significant, however, because cleanup 
     costs average $20 million per site.

                            Direct spending

       CBO estimates that provisions limiting the liability of 
     certain property owners would reduce net offsetting receipts 
     by about $2 million a year. EPA currently negotiates 
     liability settlements with 20 to 25 prospective purchasers of 
     contaminated property. As part of these agreements, 
     purchasers make both monetary and in-kind payments in 
     consideration of the government's covenant not to sue. While 
     the cash payments vary significantly among properties, the 
     agency typically collects an average of $100,000 per 
     settlement. EPA would forgo such payments under S. 350, 
     because prospective purchasers would no longer need these 
     agreements to be relieved of liability for cleaning up a 
     site.
       The other limitations on liability in title II also could 
     affect EPA's ability to recover costs that the agency incurs 
     at cleanup projects that are the responsibility of private 
     parties. Liability for cleanup is retroactive, strict, and 
     joint and several, so changing the liability of one party 
     generally has the effect of shifting liability among the 
     other private parties. On the other hand, there may be some 
     circumstances in which this legislation would exempt the only 
     party likely to pay cleanup costs. We estimate that the loss 
     of offsetting receipts from these changes is likely to be 
     insignificant, however, because most of the provisions are 
     similar to current EPA practice.

                                Revenues

       This bill would affect revenues by authorizing States and 
     local governments to use Federal grants for brownfields 
     remediation to capitalize revolving funds. JCT expects that 
     the ability to leverage these revolving funds would result in 
     an increase in the issuance of tax-exempt bonds by State and 
     local governments. JCT estimates that the Federal Government 
     would forgo tax revenues of $110 million over the 2002-2011 
     period as a result of these provisions.


                      PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

       The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets 
     up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
     spending or receipts. The net changes in outlays and 
     governmental receipts that are subject to pay-as-you-go 
     procedures are shown in the following table. For the purposes 
     of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in 
     the current year, the budget year, and the succeeding 4 years 
     are counted.

                                                                            [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2001         2002         2003         2004         2005         2006         2007         2008         2009         2010         2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays...............................       0            2            2            2            2            2            2            2            2            2            2
Changes in receipts..............................       0            0            1            4            8           11           15           17           18           18           18
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S3896]]

        ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

       S. 350 would impose no mandates on State, local, or tribal 
     governments. The bill would authorize $200 million annually 
     from 2002 through 2006 for grants to State and local 
     governments for inventorying, characterizing, assessing and 
     remediating brownfield sites and for establishing or 
     enhancing response programs. Implementing S. 350 would 
     benefit State, local, and tribal governments if the Congress 
     appropriates funds for the grants and loans authorized in the 
     bill. Any costs incurred to participate in those grants and 
     loan programs would be voluntary.
       S. 350 would make several changes to current law concerning 
     liabilities under CERCLA of certain property owners, which 
     may include State, local, or tribal governments. These 
     changes in liability, while not preemptions of State law, 
     could make it more difficult for any States that currently 
     rely on CERCLA to recover costs and damages under their own 
     cleanup programs from parties whose liability now would be 
     eliminated or limited by the bill. On the other hand, these 
     changes could benefit State, local, and tribal governments as 
     landowners if their liability would be reduced or eliminated. 
     Enacting S. 350 could also benefit State and local 
     governments with contaminated sites in their jurisdictions by 
     clarifying the liability for certain property owners under 
     Federal law and thereby encouraging remediation and 
     redevelopment of those sites.


                 ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR

       This bill contains no new private-sector mandates as 
     defined in UMRA.
       Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp (226-
     2860); Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 
     Victoria Heid Hall (225-3220); Impact on the Private Sector: 
     Lauren Marks (226-2940); Revenues: Thomas Holtmann (226-
     7575).
       Estimate Approved by: Peter H. Fontaine Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hamsphire. Mr. President, I also ask to have printed 
in the Record a letter dated April 12, 2001 to Mr. Dan Crippen of the 
Congressional Budget Office signed by myself, Senator Reid, Senator 
Chafee, and Senator Boxer. The letter illustrates areas in CBO's cost 
estimate that the authors of S. 350 believe to be inaccurate or 
misleading. It is our intent, and our belief, that S. 350 will bring 
increased private resources to brownfield sites, which will in turn 
limit future expenditure of public resources.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate,
                                   Washington, DC, April 12, 2001.
     Mr. Dan L. Crippen,
     Director, Congressional Budget Office, Ford House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Crippen: We are writing with regard to the 
     Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate for S. 350, the 
     Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act 
     of 2001. It is important that the cost estimate prepared by 
     your office accurately reflect the provisions of the bill. As 
     the lead authors of the legislation, we are concerned that 
     the cost estimate for S. 350 is inaccurate in several 
     respects and is unintentionally misleading with regard to the 
     intent and application of the legislation.
       The cost estimate indicates that section 202 of S. 350 
     would ``reduce the number of Superfund sites that can be 
     cleaned up in a timely fashion by private entities.'' We 
     disagree with this assumption because the effect of section 
     202 will be to encourage private entities to perform 
     cleanups. Although the bill may limit future potential 
     liability of parties not currently liable under the Superfund 
     statute, it does not affect the liability of parties who are 
     already liable under the statute at sites already underway. 
     For even those new prospective purchasers receiving 
     protection under section 202, the bill provides for a 
     ``windfall lien,'' which would further reduce any need for 
     Federal funding at these sites. Moreover, the ``prospective 
     purchaser'' exemption is designed to, and should result in, a 
     significant increase in cleanups by private parties, 
     particularly at non-National Priorities List sites. The net 
     effect of these factors would be an increase in the 
     availability of private cleanup funds. The overall number of 
     sites at which Federal response authority applies under the 
     Superfund statute, and which will be cleaned up by private 
     entities, will increase as a result of enactment of the 
     ``prospective purchaser'' provisions.
       In addition, the cost estimate asserts that the eventual 
     cost of the bill will be significant because cleanup costs 
     average $20 million per site. In fact, although cleanup costs 
     at National Priorities List sites may average approximately 
     $20 million per site, the cleanup costs at a brownfield site 
     averages approximately $500,000 per site. Indeed, since this 
     section applies to both NPL and non-NPL sites, and there are 
     many more brownfield sites addressed annually than there are 
     NPL sites, the average cost of the sites covered by this 
     provision would be dramatically less than that indicated. 
     Therefore, as currently drafted, the estimate would lead one 
     to believe that S. 350 could shift responsibility to the 
     Federal Government for as much as $20 million in cleanup 
     costs per site. This simply is not the case.
       While we do not dispute the numbers provided by the cost 
     estimate, it is equally important that the narrative section 
     of the cost estimate accurately track the provisions of the 
     legislation as closely as possible. We respectfully request 
     that the Congressional Budget Office reissue the cost 
     estimate for S. 350 to address the types of concerns we have 
     raised. Please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss these 
     issues further.
           Sincerely,
     Bob Smith,
     Lincoln Chafee,
     Harry Reid,
     Barbara Boxer,
       U.S. Senators.


                           Amendment No. 352

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
call up the managers' amendment to S. 350 which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself, 
     Mr. Reid, Mr. Chafee, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 352.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

         Beginning on page 57, strike line 24 and all that follows 
     through page 58, line 3, and insert the following:
       ``(ii)(I) is contaminated by a controlled substance (as 
     defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 802));
       ``(II)(aa) is contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum 
     product excluded from the definition of `hazardous substance' 
     under section 101; and
       ``(bb) is a site determined by the Administrator or the 
     State, as appropriate, to be--

       ``(AA) of relatively low risk, as compared with other 
     petroleum-only sites in the State; and
       ``(BB) a site for which there is no viable responsible 
     party and which will be assessed, investigated, or cleaned up 
     by a person that is not potentially liable for cleaning up 
     the site; and

       ``(cc) is not subject to any order issued under section 
     9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h)); 
     or
       ``(III) is mine-scarred land.''.
       On page 65, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       ``(4) Insurance.--A recipient of a grant or loan awarded 
     under subsection (b) or (c) that performs a characterization, 
     assessment, or remediation of a brownfield site may use a 
     portion of the grant or loan to purchase insurance for the 
     characterization, assessment, or remediation of that site.
       On page 67, line 16, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``, including threats in areas in which there is a 
     greater-than-normal incidence of diseases or conditions 
     (including cancer, asthma, or birth defects) that may be 
     associated with exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, 
     or contaminants''.
       On page 68, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       ``(J) The extent to which a grant would address or 
     facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to the 
     health or welfare of children, pregnant women, minority or 
     low-income communities, or other sensitive populations.
       On page 70, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(4) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Inspector General of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress 
     a report that provides a description of the management of the 
     program (including a description of the allocation of funds 
     under this section).
       On page 71, strike lines 15 through 17 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(k) Effect on Federal Laws.--Nothing in this section 
     affects any liability or response authority under any Federal 
     law, including--
       ``(1) this Act (including the last sentence of section 
     101(14));
       ``(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.).
       ``(l) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $200,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
       ``(2) Use of certain funds.--Of the amount made available 
     under paragraph (1), $50,000,000, or, if the amount made 
     available is less than $200,000,000, 25 percent of the amount 
     made available, shall be used for site characterization, 
     assessment, and remediation of facilities described in 
     section 101(39)(D)(ii)(II).''.
       On page 93, line 4, before ``develop'', insert ``purchase 
     insurance or''.
       On page 94, line 11, strike ``and''.
       On page 94, line 14, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``; and''.

[[Page S3897]]

       On page 94, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       ``(iii) a mechanism by which--

       ``(I) a person that is or may be affected by a release or 
     threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or 
     contaminant at a brownfield site located in the community in 
     which the person works or resides may request the conduct of 
     a site assessment; and
       ``(II) an appropriate State official shall consider and 
     appropriately respond to a request under subclause (I).

       On page 97, line 7, after ``Administrator'', insert ``, 
     after consultation with the State,''.
       On page 97, line 18, after the period, insert the 
     following: ``Consultation with the State shall not limit the 
     ability of the Administrator to make this determination.''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 15 minutes.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today 
on S. 350, the Senate's Superfund brownfields legislation.
  As most of those working on this issue know, I have been working on 
comprehensive Superfund reform essentially ever since I was elected to 
Congress, about 8\1/2\ years ago. This was a very difficult issue.
  In my opinion, we would have been best served if we had comprehensive 
Superfund reform of the entire Superfund statute, but given the 
political dynamics we face in the country and the Congress today, it 
was evident that we would not be able to achieve a comprehensive bill 
at this point in time, and the decision was made to move ahead with 
brownfields legislation this year. That was a decision I fought against 
last year but agreed to support this year, to see if we couldn't move 
ahead and achieve some of the objectives that have already been so well 
explained with regard to this legislation.
  Brownfields legislation is badly needed in this country, as we try to 
reform and clean up some of the areas that have been discussed by other 
Senators. One of the concerns many of us had, however, was that if we 
do a brownfields bill, we need to do one that truly works and not 
simply create another approach to the issue that runs into the same 
problems we have dealt with under the Superfund statute for so many 
years. In other words, we need to craft it so the effort to reclaim 
these areas and make them green again is not a failure and we don't 
simply pass legislation that creates another set of difficult, 
burdensome approaches to the issue.
  To effectively encourage more brownfields redevelopment programs, we 
have to provide the necessary resources, give the States the management 
and oversight responsibility within their borders, and ensure that 
developers are confident that their involvement will be truly welcomed 
and they will not simply pick up the liabilities already facing those 
who own the brownfields and work on the properties.
  All this has to be done in conjunction with the assurance that public 
health and the environment are being adequately protected. In that 
context, as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee handled 
this issue, a number of us had concerns that we hadn't yet achieved 
those objectives as well as we could. I commend the managers of this 
bill for working so well with us to address those issues in the interim 
since the bill was sent out of committee and is now being considered in 
the Senate. We have a managers' amendment that addresses a number of 
those concerns and that makes it possible for those of us who had 
problems with the way the bill was originally drafted to work with and 
support the bill at this point.
  The Senate has held many hearings on this legislation. A number of us 
have worked on this measure for many years. I will discuss some of the 
elements of progress that have been made since the bill was sent out of 
committee and as we now move forward with the managers' amendment. I am 
very pleased that we were successful in making these improvements.
  The first issue relates to State finality. For those who are not 
concerned with the issue, what we are talking about is a policy 
decision that says that State governments should be the ones that 
handle the management of the brownfields legislation. Instead of having 
a national, federally led and, many of us believe, dictate-driven 
decisionmaking process, we wanted to put together a system in which 
each individual State had the ability to interpret and implement the 
brownfields legislation with decisions going on in their own States.
  Many of us felt that State management and control would result in 
much better decisionmaking, as we would see it at the State and local 
level, than we would have if the decisionmaking were driven from the 
Federal level. It is a case of the State and local people having a much 
better understanding of the needs in their communities than those who 
are distant decisionmakers, not having the ability and understanding to 
truly address the issues as best they could.
  We needed to achieve that by still making sure the environmental 
objectives were in place. I believe the managers' amendment gives us an 
important stride forward in this effort.
  As the Senator from California, who just spoke, indicated, one of the 
protections built into this bill was the provision that if, as the 
State moves forward, an imminent and substantial endangerment is found 
to the environment or public health, then the Federal Government, 
through the EPA, can step in and take some remedial actions. Short of 
that imminent and substantial endangerment, it is the State's 
responsibility for action.
  One of the concerns that was debated in committee was whether we had 
adequately clarified it enough to make it clear that the EPA or the 
Federal administrators could not simply use any excuse they wanted in 
order to claim an imminent and substantial endangerment, and had to 
truly work with the States and step in at the Federal level only in 
those extreme cases in which it was clear that the State either did not 
have the resources or was not willing to implement the law.
  I believe that is where we have reached the compromise. The language 
included in the bill says imminent and substantial endangerment must be 
found by the Federal Government before it can step in and supersede a 
State's actions, which is the intent of all of us who have worked on 
this legislation. That gives the States truly an opportunity to have 
finality to their decisions about how to implement this law.
  Second, I am pleased that our efforts working with the managers of 
the bill were successful in nearly doubling the number of eligible 
brownfield sites under the program by expanding the bill's coverage. 
This improvement alone will help make this program a reality for many 
more communities around the country.
  In appreciation for the managers' efforts to improve the original 
bill, I intend to support the amendment today, and the bill with the 
amendment in place. I know there is still a lot of debate about whether 
we have made enough improvement in the legislation or whether we have 
made the bill good enough. The other body is going to be working on its 
proposals, and there will still be an effort to work with the 
administration, as the President, the House, and the Senate all work 
together to craft a brownfields bill that will ultimately be signed 
into law.
  I look forward to working with all of them to make sure that even 
further improvements and changes to the legislation can be made as we 
move through the legislative process.
  This effort today is a very strong effort, and I think a very good 
effort, to move forward on meaningful brownfields legislation. With the 
managers' amendment, as I said, enough improvements have been made that 
those of us who had concerns at the committee level, I think most, if 
not all of us, will be able to support the bill today. We will continue 
to work with the House and the President and with the managers of the 
bill in the Senate to see that we can make even additional improvements 
to the legislation as it moves forward in the legislative process. I 
think it is an important first step we are taking today, but it should 
be recognized as such--as an important but first step.

  With that, I conclude my remarks and yield back my remaining time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S3898]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 350, the 
Brownfields Revitalization and Restoration Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is my understanding that the Senator from 
Ohio is using the time of Senator Bond; is that true?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, it is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this legislation will provide 
incentives to clean up abandoned industrial sites, or brownfields, 
across the country and put them back into productive use and preserve 
our green spaces.
  I want to congratulate the chairman of the committee, Senator Smith, 
the ranking member of the committee, Senator Reid, the subcommittee 
chairman, Senator Chafee, and all the other members of the committee 
who have worked to put this piece of legislation together.
  Revitalizing our urban areas has been an issue I have been passionate 
about for many years. As former mayor of Cleveland, I experienced 
first-hand the difficulties that cities face in redeveloping these 
sites.
  I have been working on brownfields issues at the national level since 
I became Governor of Ohio in 1990 and through my involvement with the 
National Governors' Association and the Republican Governors' 
Association. For more than a decade, I have worked closely with 
congressional leaders, such as Mike Oxley of Ohio and the late Senator 
John Chafee, to develop legislation that would do many of the same 
things this bill does.
  When the Environment and Public Works Committee considered this 
legislation in March, I voted to report the bill out of committee after 
getting a commitment from the Presiding Officer today, Senator Reid, 
that he would be willing to work with me on some concerns I had 
regarding specific bill language.
  During the committee markup of S. 350, I offered an amendment seeking 
to strengthen the State finality provisions in the legislation. Based 
on the commitment I received from Senator Reid, I ultimately withdrew 
my amendment.
  In my view, we need to create more certainty in the brownfields 
cleanup process. Parties that clean up non-Superfund sites under State 
cleanup laws need certainty about the rules that apply to them, 
particularly that their actions terminate the risk of future liability 
under the Federal Superfund Program.
  Last Congress, I introduced legislation supported by the National 
Governors' Association and the National Council of State Legislatures 
which would create more certainty by allowing States to release parties 
that cleaned up sites under State laws and programs from Federal 
liability.
  I believe it is important that we build upon the success of State 
programs by providing even more incentives to clean up brownfield sites 
in order to provide better protection for the health and safety of our 
citizens and substantially improve the environment.
  What we do not need are delays caused by the U.S. EPA's second-
guessing of State decisions. A good example of second-guessing occurred 
in my own State. One company, TRW, completed a cleanup at its site in 
Minerva, OH, under Ohio's enforcement program in 1986. Despite these 
cleanup efforts, the U.S. EPA placed the site on the NPL list in 1989. 
However, after listing the site, the EPA took no aggressive steps for 
additional cleanup, and it has remained untouched for years.
  To enhance and encourage further cleanup efforts, my State has 
implemented a private-sector-based program to clean up brownfield 
sites. When I was Governor, the Ohio EPA, Republicans and Democrats in 
the General Assembly and I worked hard to implement a program that we 
believe works for Ohio. Our program is already successful in improving 
Ohio's environment and our economy, recycling acres and acres of 
wasteland, particularly in our urban areas.
  In almost 20 years under the Federal Superfund Program, the U.S. EPA 
has only cleaned up 18 sites in Ohio. In contrast, 78 sites have been 
cleaned up under Ohio's voluntary program in the last 6 years, and many 
more cleanups are underway.
  States clearly have been the innovators in developing voluntary 
cleanup programs, and Ohio's program has been very successful in 
getting cleanups done more quickly and cost effectively. For example, 
the first cleanup conducted under our program--the Kessler Products 
facility near Canton, OH--was estimated to cost $2 million and to take 
3 to 5 years to complete if it had been cleaned up under Superfund. 
However, under Ohio's voluntary program, the cost was $600,000 and took 
6 months to complete. These cleanups are good for the environment and 
they are good for the economy.
  States are leading the way in cleaning up sites more efficiently and 
cost effectively. According to State solid waste management officials, 
States average more than 1,400 cleanups per year, and they are 
addressing approximately 4,700 sites all over the United States of 
America at any given time.
  I am pleased the bill we are considering today does not require the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to pre-approve State laws and 
programs. State brownfield programs address sites that are not on the 
national priorities list and where the Federal Government has played 
little or no role.
  Ohio and other States have very successful programs that clean up 
sites more efficiently and cost effectively. I worked closely with 
Senator Smith and Senator Reid and other Members to protect these 
State's programs. The managers' amendment is a result of that hard 
work.

  While I would still like to see more protection and certainty for 
State programs, I do not believe we should delay the improvements to 
the current programs that are in this bill. What our States are doing 
is helping to recycle our urban wastelands, prevent urban sprawl, and 
preserve our farmland and green spaces. So often people forget about 
the fact we have these acres of wastelands in many urban, and even 
rural, areas around the nation. Unless these sites are cleaned up, they 
will force a greater loss of green space in our respective States.
  These programs are cleaning up industrial eyesores in our cities and 
making them more desirable places to live and work. That is another 
aspect of this legislation to which the Senator from California, 
Senator Boxer, eloquently spoke.
  Because these programs are putting abandoned sites back into 
productive use, they are a key element in providing economic rebirth to 
many urban areas and good paying jobs to local residents. That is 
another side we do not think about. We have all sorts of assistance 
programs, training programs, and so forth, helping people become self-
sufficient and productive citizens. In far too many cases in the United 
States, because we have not recycled urban industrial sites, businesses 
and jobs are developed in the outlying areas where many urban residents 
simply cannot get to, and are, therefore, unable to take advantage of 
those jobs.
  Mr. President, this is a wonderful bill in so many respects. It makes 
sense for our environment and it makes sense for our economy. 
Therefore, I am pleased the Senate is considering this bill today and I 
urge the House and Senate to come to a prompt agreement on a final 
version of this legislation so we can provide a cleaner environment for 
cities across America.
  I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this important 
legislation to provide States and local communities with the tools and 
the resources they need to clean up and reuse polluted industrial 
properties, turning them from eyesores into opportunities and 
leveraging literally billions of dollars in economic benefits.
  The legislation we are voting on today, S. 350, the Brownfields 
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration

[[Page S3899]]

Act of 2001, represents the ultimate form of recycling. It is the 
recycling of one of our most precious and scarce natural resources; 
namely, our land. Our environmental resources, as our financial 
resources, are not limitless. The cleanup and reuse of brownfield sites 
allows businesses and developers to use existing infrastructure so we 
can reduce sprawl and preserve our precious green space and farmland 
and, at the same time, it provides an opportunity to energize local 
economies and create new jobs.
  I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 350, the Brownfields 
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, an act which, 
as the President knows so well, enjoys broad bipartisan support of a 
majority of the Senate, as well as of the administration, a diversity 
of State and local government organizations, business interests, and 
environmental advocacy groups.
  This bill, S. 350, is an important step in building on the proven 
success of existing brownfields efforts. The bill authorizes the 
establishment of a flexible program to provide grants and loans to 
State, tribal, and local governments and nonprofit organizations to 
assess, safely clean up, and reuse brownfields. It includes important 
provisions that promote assistance for small, low-income communities, 
as well as supporting efforts to create or preserve open space and 
furthering participation by the public in cleanup decisions.
  The bill provides appropriate liability relief for innocent parties 
who want to clean up and reuse brownfield sites, while maintaining the 
necessary Federal safety net to address serious cleanup issues.
  Last week, I was delighted to learn that the EPA was making grants 
for additional brownfields funding for Utica, NY. I remember the first 
time I visited downtown Utica and saw all of the old mill and factory 
buildings, which already were tied in with existing utilities, 
providing an excellent opportunity for remediation that could be then 
followed by immediate redevelopment, only to be told because they were 
built on old industrial sites, because the manufacturing processes that 
occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries involved dangerous chemicals 
and other contaminants, these brownfield sites in the middle of 
downtown Utica were too expensive for private developers and the local 
community to clean up. I am delighted that Utica and other such places 
around New York, including Albany and Chautauqua Counties and a village 
of Haverstram in Rockland County also received brownfields funding.
  We have seen the benefits of brownfields cleanup and revitalization 
throughout New York, from Buffalo to Glen Cove, and all the places in 
between. I stood on the shore at Glen Cove, one of the most beautiful 
communities on the north shore of Long Island, and could see the 
effects of the cleanup of brownfields that are going to turn what had 
been a contaminated waste area into a place that can be part of 
waterfront redevelopment.

  To date, over 20 communities across New York have received assistance 
through EPA's existing brownfields program. It is my hope and belief 
that there will be many more when we finish this legislation, which 
will more than double the resources currently available for brownfields 
cleanup across our country.
  This bill strikes a delicate balance. There are compromises and 
tradeoffs. I appreciate the hard work of the committee in a bipartisan 
fashion to move this legislation forward. I take this opportunity to 
thank the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee on 
which I am honored to serve, particularly our chairman, Senator Smith, 
and our ranking member, Senator Reid, and the two Senators who pushed 
this legislation forward because of their respective chairing and 
ranking positions on a subcommittee; namely, Senators Chafee and Boxer. 
I also thank the staffs, including my staff, the committee staff, and 
the individual staffs of the Senators who worked so quickly and 
diligently to move this legislation to the floor today.
  The managers' amendment includes a number of significant provisions. 
Again, I applaud and thank everyone who was part of this process. I am 
grateful; two of the managers' amendments I personally sponsored will 
be part of this legislation. One provision will help focus the delivery 
of brownfields assistance to communities that experience a higher than 
normal incidence of diseases such as cancer, asthma, or birth defects.
  Two weeks ago, I was very fortunate and honored to go with my friend, 
the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid, to Fallon, NV, where we held a 
hearing on a cancer cluster. It is a lovely community, 50, 60 miles 
from Reno. It is a small community, maybe 30,000 people at most, in a 
sparsely populated county. They have had 12 cases of leukemia among 
children in the last 2 years. Clearly, it is a cancer cluster. We don't 
know what is causing it. Many believe, and much of the testimony we 
heard certainly suggests, this rate of cancer in this kind of a cluster 
could be linked with exposure to hazardous substances.
  The important provision we have added to the bill will offer 
assistance to communities already burdened with severe health programs, 
to help them clean up the polluted sites that may contribute to these 
problems. We will have to do a lot more, and I will be working with 
Senator Reid under his leadership to think about what else we can do to 
address environmental health issues.
  We certainly have more than our share in New York. I am hoping that 
in the future we will have a hearing in New York, perhaps on Long 
Island, to talk about the cancer clusters. We have asthma clusters; we 
have diabetes clusters. We need to figure out what we are doing or what 
we could stop doing or how we can clean up whatever might be 
associated.
  Under S. 350, States that receive brownfields funding must survey and 
inventory sites in the State. I was concerned there might be sites that 
would be overlooked in communities that are small or sparsely populated 
such as Fallon, or low-income or minority such as those in New York 
City.
  I am pleased that with this provision in the managers' amendment we 
will be able to include public participation so individuals can request 
a nearby brownfield site be assessed under a State program. States 
would maintain discretion and flexibility to set up this process 
however they best see fit, but concerned citizens would not be shut out 
of the process. They could participate and ask their particular 
brownfield site be given some attention and perhaps even expedited 
cleanup because of the impact on their local community.
  In every corner of our country there are abandoned, blighted areas 
that used to be the engines of the industrial economy or served in our 
national defense. We were privileged to hear testimony from the admiral 
who runs the naval airbase that trains the top gun pilots outside of 
Fallon. They use a lot of jet fuel. They have to occasionally burn it. 
They sometimes have to drop it in their flight. They were very willing 
to come forward and talk about what the defense industry can do to help 
in this area.
  Many of the places suffering from brownfields were in the forefront 
of creating the strong economy and the strong national defense system 
we enjoy today. I think we have to pay attention to the needs of these 
communities.
  I thank all who have made it possible for us to consider this bill 
today. I urge my colleagues to join in passing this important piece of 
environmental and economic and health care legislation. I hope our 
colleagues in the House will work to move their own brownfields bill so 
we can finally get about the business of revitalizing these sites so 
they can realize their economic potential and preserve our country's 
beautiful, open spaces, and revitalize our downtown areas.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from New York leaves the 
floor, I want to publicly express my appreciation for her traveling to 
Nevada as part of a committee to deal with a most serious problem. As 
the Senator indicated, we do not know what the problem is in Churchill 
County. Is it problems with the base? It could be from fuel. We 
understand there have been alleged large leakages of fuel. Is it from 
the dumping of the fuel, as she indicated? There is a theory by some 
academics out of England that maybe it is

[[Page S3900]]

a virus caused by the huge influx of people coming to the base from 
various parts of the world to this previously very stable community. 
Maybe it is from the agricultural activity. The first Bureau of 
Reclamation project in the history of this country took place there, 
the Newlands project. For years they have been dumping hundreds of tons 
of pesticides and herbicides on those crops. Could that be the cause? 
Could it be the arsenic in the water there, which is 100 parts per 
billion? We are trying to lower it to 10 parts per billion. We simply 
do not know the cause.
  With the Senator from New York coming there--I do not mean to 
embarrass her, but with her national following, she focused attention 
on Fallon, NV, that would have never been accomplished had she not 
shown up there.
  I indicated to the Senator earlier today I am going to send to her 
the series of positive editorials that were written about her coming to 
the State of Nevada, trying to help us with this most difficult 
problem.
  Finally, I want to say, as I have already said earlier, outside her 
presence but on this floor, what a valuable member of this committee is 
the Senator from New York. For the not quite 100 days we have been 
functioning as this new Congress, she has been a member of this 
committee and she has been very valuable. She attends the meetings, 
stays through the meetings, and, as I indicated, she has been of 
valuable assistance making this legislation better. I am happy to have 
her as a member of the committee and of the Senate. The people from New 
York should feel very good about the person they brought to Washington 
as a Senator representing that State.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank my friend from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey the time that is 
left over from my having spoken. I believe there may be some other time 
in there. I think the only speakers we have still to come are Senator 
Corzine and Senator Carper--I think that is all who wish to speak. We 
are going to 2 o'clock, so I yield whatever time up to 10 or 12 minutes 
to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding the 
time. Before I begin my own remarks on brownfields, I want to join him 
in commenting that Hillary Rodham Clinton had potentially one of the 
most difficult transformations ever, maybe, becoming a Member of the 
Senate. It is also fair to say after only 100 days she has probably had 
one of the most remarkably successful transformations ever made to the 
Senate.
  Rarely has someone come to the Senate and devoted themselves so 
diligently to the details of their work, meeting their responsibilities 
to their State with such bipartisan acclaim by her colleagues.
  I think the people of New York should be very proud, under difficult 
circumstances and the changing of public responsibilities, of how well 
she accomplished the feat and now how proudly she represents the State 
of New York.

  Since the fortunes of New Jersey are so closely tied to those of our 
modest neighbor across the river, we are grateful that New York is so 
well represented. I congratulate her on her introduction to the Senate.
  As my friend and colleague from New York, I wish to address my 
colleagues on the question of the brownfields legislation. We have now 
completed an unprecedented decade of extraordinary national prosperity. 
But it is a cruel irony that many of those communities which, a 
generation ago, laid the foundation for America's industrial might and 
the prosperity of our generation have not participated in every aspect 
of this new prosperity.
  Critical to the goal of ensuring that all communities do, indeed, 
benefit from this prosperity is creating sound economic development in 
these traditional economic centers. Although often more graphic in 
central cities because of their limited space, brownfields 
redevelopment is not just an issue of these old centers. It has also 
become a question of small towns. The problem is, whether it is these 
older industrial centers upon which our Nation built its future or it 
is small towns or rural areas, the Senate now in considering again 
changes to brownfields legislation must deal with the reality that 
brownfields redevelopment projects must overcome several difficult but 
critical barriers. These barriers historically have included: No. 1, a 
lack of process certainty; No. 2, liability concerns; No. 3, added 
expenses of environmental cleanup and the lack of redevelopment 
financing.
  S. 350 is a bipartisan effort to address these very issues and to 
make our brownfields program of the last few years everything that it 
can, should, and must be.
  Since 1993, when the Brownfields Pilot Program was implemented, 
hundreds of communities across the Nation have been successful in their 
efforts to assess, clean up, and redevelop vacant or underused 
contaminated sites. In my State of New Jersey, brownfields 
revitalization represents the potential rebirth of many distressed 
cities. Indeed, in many respects brownfields and HOPE VI grants have 
entirely changed the landscape of some of the most distressed urban 
areas in the State of New Jersey.
  In Trenton, an old steel plant has been transformed to a minor league 
baseball field. Now a center of recreation, attention, and life of the 
city of Trenton, only years ago it was abandoned, contaminated 
property.
  A railroad yard on the Camden waterfront in front of a enormously 
wonderful view of the city of Philadelphia, what should have been some 
of the most productive land in the Nation, was abandoned. It has now 
become a major entertainment center for the bistate area.
  The city of Elizabeth is taking a former landfill and constructing a 
shopping mall.
  For all of these reasons, brownfields legislation is critical, 
irreplaceable, in the economic revitalization of the cities of New 
Jersey. It is not a theory. It is not a potential. It has been proven. 
It is real in every one of these communities. But it does need to be 
improved. I support the enhancements contained in S. 350 because, No. 
1, they reduce the legal and regulatory barriers that prevent 
brownfields redevelopment and provide funds to States for cleanup 
programs. No. 2, they address the needs to address potential 
liabilities faced by prospective purchasers and adjoining landowners. 
Finally, they provide funds to assess and clean up abandoned and 
underutilized brownfields sites. This has not been the province of 
private funding sources.
  This bill goes a long way to remove many of the uncertainties that 
have made the financing of a brownfield project such a formidable task. 
While this legislation is a major step in the right direction, there is 
more that must be done to enhance the public-private partnerships to 
complete the picture of brownfields revitalization. The strengthening 
of the public-private partnership utilizes tax incentives to help 
attract affordable private investment.
  In August of 1997, this body approved a potentially significant 
brownfields tax incentive. This tax incentive, referred to as the 
``expensing provision,'' allowed new owners of these contaminated sites 
to write cleanup costs off their taxes in the year they were deducted. 
This allows for increased cashflow for redevelopment projects. 
Surprisingly, despite the potential advantage of this expensing 
provision, there have been relatively few takers.
  A GAO study reported in December of 2000 that in New Jersey there had 
been only three development projects which had even applied for this 
tax benefit. Developers told me they are discouraged from using the 
provision because of the provision's indefinite future and the 
exclusion of brownfield sites containing petroleum. There is simply no 
incentive for real estate developers to complete projects and market 
them quickly if the tax benefit they have derived is going to be taxed 
as ordinary income at 39.6 percent rather than capital gains at 20 
percent.
  The financial impact of that reality is very significant.
  I intend to propose legislation which I believe is a very positive 
enhancement.
  My legislation will tax this ``recapture'' or reclaiming of this 
previously earned benefit as capital gain at a rate of 20 percent 
rather than as ordinary income.

[[Page S3901]]

  Using tax incentives to overcome capital shortages, in the market 
place, to achieve greater public benefits, is a proven formula for 
success.
  This is exactly what I intend to do. This can be done to reverse 
negative trends and start new, constructive initiatives.
  In 1962, the Regional Plan Association of New Jersey-New York-
Connecticut in its publication ``Spread City'' stated that the region 
was drifting into a costly spread-out pattern of suburban development 
versus dormant central cities.
  This publication noted that this pattern would produce suburbs with 
``neither the benefits of the city nor the pleasures of the 
countryside.''
  Four decades later this vision of ``Spread City'' has, in fact, 
materialized.
  Today, brownfields redevelopment should be viewed as a method of 
controlling urban sprawl and ultimately preserving greenfields.
  A recent study of nine New Jersey cities posed conservative estimates 
that redevelopment of identified sites across the state could house 
nearly a quarter of 225,000 new residents expected by 2005.
  It is, therefore, good economic policy. It is good social policy. It 
is good housing and job creation policy.
  Finally, it is good environmental land use policy to enact 
brownfields legislation, and to enhance it and improve it with the 
necessary tax incentives to stimulate growth based on this exciting 
concept.
  I strongly identify myself with this initiative hoping the Senate 
will consider my changes when indeed it is time to vote on brownfields.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Wellstone be added as a cosponsor to S. 350.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Torricelli). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I point out, Mr. President, that with the 
addition of Senator Wellstone, that makes 70 cosponsors to this 
legislation. That runs the entire political spectrum, from Helms to 
Wellstone. I think it is a great tribute to the type of legislation it 
is that we could forge this kind of bipartisanship.
  As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, there are a number of 
stakeholders who have written to express their support for S. 350. I 
did enter those letters in the Record and obviously will not read them 
all, but I would like to highlight just three or four.
  One of those letters was from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The 
quote from that letter is:

       The mayors believe that this legislation can dramatically 
     improve the nation's efforts to recycle abandoned or other 
     underutilized brownfields sites, providing new incentives and 
     statutory reforms to speed the assessment, cleanup and 
     redevelopment of these properties.

  I think that is a very dramatic statement. As the Presiding Officer 
knows, the mayors are a bipartisan group from both political parties 
all across the country and are across the political spectrum as well.
  Another letter we received was from the Trust for Public Land. One 
paragraph of that letter states:

       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 under-served communities to 
     reclaim abandoned sites and create open spaces. . 
     .reclamation of brownfields properties brings new life to 
     local economies and to the spirit of neighborhoods.

  Also from the National Conference of State Legislatures:

       I . . . commend you for your continued commitment to the 
     issue of brownfields revitalization. Without the necessary 
     reforms to CERCLA, [the Superfund law] clean up and 
     redevelopment opportunities are lost, as well as new jobs, 
     new tax revenues, and the opportunity to manage growth . . . 
     NCSL has made this a top priority and we applaud the 
     committee's leadership. . . .

  Finally, from the Building Owners & Managers Association, 
International:

       Thanks to the efforts of a dedicated collection of 
     Senators, the Senate now has a bipartisan piece of 
     legislation that would generate improved liability 
     protections, enhanced State involvement and increased federal 
     cleanup funding. Adoption of S. 350 would have an immediate 
     and dramatic impact on reducing the 400,000 brownfields sites 
     across America.

  Mr. President, as I have stated many times indeed--and the 
distinguished Presiding Officer also mentioned some of this in his 
remarks--this bill is going to encourage redevelopment and 
revitalization all across our country.
  I would like to highlight one particular redevelopment option that 
would benefit from this bill. It is called ECO industrial development. 
It is similar to that of the Londonderry, NH, industrial park.
  By reducing the waste and pollution from industry, industrial land 
users become better neighbors in residential areas. Developers and 
communities can target the kind of development they want rather than 
being at odds with each other.
  I think that is the beauty of this legislation.
  Eco-industrial development helps break down the notion that enhanced 
environmental management can only be done at a greater cost to 
businesses. It is not true. The two go hand in hand. You can have an 
enhanced environment, and you can enhance industry. That is why this 
concept is so appropriate.
  I am hopeful this legislation will, in fact, encourage responsible 
redevelopment and revitalization similar to the Londonderry eco-
Industrial park.
  Let me talk about eco-industrial development for just a second. It 
creates efficiencies in the use of materials and energy through 
planned, voluntary networks among businesses and their industrial-
manufacturing processes. This increased efficiency not only drives down 
pollution and waste generated by these industrial processes, but it 
increases the profitability and competitiveness of the businesses at 
the same time. With these reinforcing benefits, eco-industrial 
development is a market-based, incentive-driven means for preventing 
pollution rather than relying on the fragmented, end-of-the-pipe 
regulations we have done for so many years.
  So our current measures of productivity are based almost entirely on 
measuring industrial output per unit of labor. But a handful of 
companies--Dow Chemical, Monsanto, 3M, Ford Motor, and others--have 
been focusing on ways to increase or maintain their current level of 
output while using fewer resources. This resource productivity can 
increase a company's return on its assets significantly. And overall, 
an industrial and manufacturing sector in the U.S. that uses materials 
and energy more efficiently will become more productive, more 
profitable, and will remain competitive in global markets.

  I think the moral of the story is that when you take an abandoned 
site that has been polluted and you convert it into whatever--either a 
green space or a true park or playground, or a baseball field, as the 
Presiding Officer mentioned, in Trenton--whatever you do with it, if 
you turn it into something productive, you have, No. 1, created jobs in 
doing so, and, No. 2, you have taken all the pressure off additional 
green space--a lot of pressure off additional green space--that now 
will not be developed because this will be redeveloped, and also you 
help to beautify your community.
  I think it is also important to point out it is not just the large 
cities such as Trenton, NJ, or Manchester, NH, or any other large 
city--it is not just large cities--there are many small towns all 
across America where some 400,000 to 500,000 of these sites lie. A lot 
of them are on the eastern seaboard in the early developed areas of our 
country, along the rivers and railroad tracks, and these are the areas 
that need help.
  For so many years, under the current Superfund law, they have not 
been able to develop these sites because industry and contractors 
simply would not take the risk, knowing the possible liability. So that 
is why this legislation is so exciting. It is also why we have 70 
cosponsors and why we probably will have a close to unanimous, if not 
unanimous, vote in the Senate. And we look

[[Page S3902]]

forward to seeing this bill move forward to the House, and to get it 
out of the House or out of conference, whatever the case may be, and 
get it to the President's desk.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 350, the 
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I 
am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation.
  This bill proves that environmental protection and economic 
development can go hand in hand, that we can take depressed, blighted 
areas, such as those in New Jersey with which we have worked, and make 
them vibrant and productive, and that we can do so in a cooperative, 
bipartisan manner.
  Hundreds of thousands of contaminated industrial sites lie 
underutilized or even abandoned across the country, largely because of 
the potential risk and expense of cleaning them up. New Jersey has more 
than 8,000 of these brownfields.
  When developers now look at these sites, they see a hornet's nest of 
problems. But when I look at them, I see opportunities. Many of these 
brownfields are located in economically depressed urban areas. Cleaning 
them up can spur economic development, create jobs, and bring in 
additional tax revenue.
  Of course, cleaning up brownfields does more than help the economy. 
It also protects the public health. In addition, by cleaning up sites 
in our urban areas, we redirect development away from our remaining 
open space and reduce many of the problems associated with sprawl.
  Unfortunately, despite the broad benefits of cleaning up brownfields, 
the private sector often finds it unattractive or unrealistic to take 
on the task. Nor is it always easy for States and local governments. 
That's why this legislation is so important. By providing needed 
funding and placing reasonable limits on developers' liability, it 
should encourage the development of many brownfields and the 
revitalization of depressed areas around our Nation and across the 
State of New Jersey.
  This legislation also represents an important compromise of Federal 
and State interests. It provides funding for grants to States to help 
them enhance and develop their own brownfields programs. It recognizes 
the important lead role that States play in dealing with brownfields, 
but it also retains the right of the Federal Government to intervene 
under certain circumstances to address serious threats that may arise. 
In general, I see this as a sound balance.

  We should be proud that we have been able to work this in a way that 
leads to a positive long-term result.
  I do point out, however, that this bill merely provides an 
authorization for funding in the future. It doesn't provide the funding 
itself. Often we talk about authorizations and take victory laps, but 
the appropriations process is important. That will be up to those in 
the appropriations process later on, and we'll all have to work hard to 
make sure that we can find real dollars to be placed against this real 
need.
  Along these lines, I was very disappointed that the Bush budget 
included only $98 million for brownfields redevelopment. That's far 
short of the $250 million authorized in this bill for fiscal year 2002. 
The Bush administration has said that it would support the bill, but 
their budget doesn't have the money to show this support. Congress will 
have to do better.
  Finally, I acknowledge the leadership of my predecessor, Senator 
Frank Lautenberg, who took the lead in the last Congress to develop 
this legislation. Senator Lautenberg for years has been a strong 
advocate of addressing brownfields. I am pleased that his efforts--and 
the efforts of staffer Lisa Haage, who now works for the Environment 
Committee--soon should bear fruit.
  I also want to thank Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee, and Boxer for 
their leadership and hard work in crafting and advancing this 
bipartisan legislation this year. This bill proves that bipartisanship 
can and will lead to positive results, particularly with regard to 
environmental legislation. I am hopeful that that spirit of cooperation 
will operate here in the Chamber.
  With that, I conclude my remarks and again urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes this 
afternoon to express my support for S. 350, the Brownfields 
Revitalization and Restoration Act. It is a bill which I hope we will 
vote to pass today and, hopefully, it will be enacted in the House as 
well. The bill before us this afternoon represents years of discussion, 
countless hearings and a genuine compromise. Some people in this 
Chamber have been part of those discussions and have worked hard to 
achieve this compromise.
  We have heard from others today who talked about the balance this 
bill represents and some of the compromises it contains. I want to 
focus in my remarks on what this bill means to our States, including 
the State I am privileged to represent, Delaware, where this 
legislation can make and will make a real and significant impact.
  This morning, I came to work by train, as I do most mornings. I 
caught the train in Wilmington and headed down to Washington. I looked 
out, as I often do, the left side of the train as we pulled out of the 
Amtrak station in Wilmington, and I looked over to an area that during 
World War II was a prime area for building ships, along the magnificent 
Christina River. Between roughly 1941 and 1945, some 10,000 men and 
women worked along the banks of the Christina River in Wilmington. They 
built all kinds of ships, destroyer escorts, troop landing ships, 
Liberty ships, and other vessels that really helped to win World War 
II.
  When the war was over in 1945, not surprisingly, all of those people 
were no longer needed. Eventually, within a few years after the end of 
the war, that vibrant shipbuilding community along the Christina folded 
up and all of those jobs, for the most part, went away. What had been a 
vibrant area with manufacturing vitality began to go to seed, and over 
the years it eventually turned into an abandoned wasteland.
  To be honest, as Delaware's Congressman during the late 1980s, as I 
rode that same Amtrak train to work, I looked out that window and said 
to myself, boy, this looks awful. And it did. Today it doesn't. Today, 
we have a river walk, we have a beautiful park, we have buildings that 
have been restored or are being restored, we have museums, restaurants, 
and places to shop. We have a stadium where one of the greatest minor 
league baseball teams in America plays, the Wilmington Blue Rocks.
  A couple years ago, as Delaware's Governor, I signed legislation that 
enabled us to go in and turn that industrial wasteland into the 
riverfront jewel that it is becoming today for the State of Delaware. 
We returned to productive use some land that had been forgotten and 
that in a way, served as a buffer to keep people away from the river.
  I want to thank several people, certainly our subcommittee chairman, 
the ranking Democrat, and Senator Chafee, who headed the subcommittee 
to develop this bill and nurtured it over the years. I thank Senator 
Smith, chairman of the committee, for his good work, and Senator Reid 
of Nevada, who has spent a fair amount of time in these vineyards in 
the last couple of years.
  As a freshman Senator who joined this important debate a little late, 
they were kind enough to work with me and teach me a thing or two about 
these issues and listen to my concerns and to reflect some of them in 
the final bill. I don't see my friend from Ohio on the floor, but I 
want to say a word about Senator Voinovich, who chaired

[[Page S3903]]

the National Governors' Association during the time when I was its 
vice-chairman, and who has worked on this bill with me. We had the 
opportunity to work a little together on this legislation and he was 
instrumental in making a good bill even better. I am pleased to say to 
colleagues today and fellow Governors across the country that included 
in this bill is a provision that will go some distance toward ensuring 
that State certification of brownfields cleanup will actually result in 
the revitalization of thousands of underutilized sites in States across 
the country.

  I thank Senator Voinovich for his work on this, as well as the other 
members of our committee who have worked very hard and patiently over 
the last several months and years, and who didn't pass up the 
opportunity this year to make this bill the best it could be. I believe 
what we have today is a brownfields bill that moves EPA's existing 
program a significant step forward.
  This bill protects our environment and encourages businesses to reuse 
these sites. In my opinion, it just makes good sense. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
  Before I yield, I want to say, in reflecting on my first roughly 3 
months here as a Senator, I have had the opportunity to work in a 
bipartisan manner in the Chamber on a couple of major initiatives, such 
as bankruptcy reform, along with the Presiding Officer, who was 
instrumental in it; but the bill passed with 85 votes, with broad 
bipartisan support. There was also campaign finance reform, which 
enjoyed a lot of Democratic and Republican support as well. We had the 
budget resolution, which ended up enjoying a fair amount of Democratic 
support as well as Republican support, and today we have the 
brownfields legislation, which I believe will pass this Chamber with 
broad bipartisan support. I am encouraged at this degree of bipartisan 
support we have seen on these issues. Maybe we will somehow set the 
stage today for debate which is to begin maybe tomorrow or next week, 
and that is to bring up the education issues, to try to redefine the 
Federal role regarding the education of our children.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I surrender my time and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to take a couple of 
minutes to explain to my colleagues the managers' amendment, which will 
be part of the entire vote. We did expand the bill. At the end of the 
markup in committee, there were a number of concerns raised by Senators 
on both sides, which we attempted to address and finally were able to 
address. I wanted to highlight three or four of them on both sides of 
the aisle.
  Senator Inhofe raised a concern, and Senator Bond as well, about 
innocent parties cleaning up relatively low-risk brownfield sites 
contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum product. We were able to allow 
for the application for brownfields revitalization funding for those 
purposes as requested by Senators Inhofe and Bond.

  Also, in authorizing $200 million annually for the brownfields 
revitalization program, we added another $50 million, or 25 percent of 
the total for the cleanup of petroleum sites. This was included in the 
managers' amendment. We have unanimous committee support for it today. 
Those are two contributions to the overall legislation by Senators 
Inhofe and Bond.
  In addition, Senator Chafee asked for a clarification that a grant or 
loan recipient may use a portion of that grant or loan to purchase 
insurance for the characterization assessment or remediation of the 
prospective brownfields site. We were able to take care of that.
  Senator Clinton asked for conditions to the rank and criteria used to 
award moneys under this bill to address sites with a disproportionate 
impact on the health of children, minorities, and other sensitive 
subpopulations in communities with a higher than average incidence of 
cancer and other diseases and conditions. We were able to include that. 
Another concern of Senator Clinton was an element to a State response 
program whereby a citizen can request a State official to conduct a 
site assessment and the State official considers and responds 
appropriately to that request. Those issues of concern were added to 
the managers' amendment.
  In addition, Senator Voinovich asked for a requirement that the 
Administrator consult with States in determining when new information 
regarding a facility presents a threat to human health or the 
environment, while preserving EPA's authority to take appropriate 
action.
  Mr. President, I also received a moment ago a statement from the 
administration. I will quote from part of it:

       The administration supports Senate passage of S. 350 which 
     would authorize appropriations to assess and clean up certain 
     abandoned industrial sites known as brownfields and provide 
     protection from liability for certain landowners. By removing 
     barriers to brownfield cleanup and redevelopment, S. 350 
     would allow communities to reduce environmental and health 
     risks, capitalize on existing infrastructure, attract new 
     businesses and jobs, and improve their tax base.

  We are pleased to have that statement of support.
  Before I yield to Senator Reid for final remarks before the vote, I 
thank Senator Reid again and all of the members of the committee, 
Senator Chafee, Senator Boxer, and all those who worked with me to 
bring this to closure. It has been a pleasure. I have enjoyed it. It 
was a long ride, but we finally got to the end. We are glad we did. The 
country will be the beneficiary of our actions.
  It is nice to know that a piece of legislation, once it passes, will 
have immediate results for almost any community in America. There are 
so many sites. There are probably very few communities that do not have 
a brownfield site, which is an abandoned industrial site.
  I will be pleased when the bill is signed and when the dollars start 
to flow, not just from the few dollars we have in the Federal process 
but from the investments that will be made by the private sector 
because these folks will now be able to go onsite and clean them up.
  I am excited about the bill. I am glad we are at the end. I am happy 
to hand it over to the House now and wait for them, and hopefully, if 
there is a conference, it will be an easy one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to express my 
appreciation to the Senator from Delaware for being a member of the 
committee. Senator Carper and I came to Washington together, along with 
the Presiding Officer, in 1982. When he was elected to the Senate, I 
was very happy. He was a great Member of the House of Representatives 
and a tremendous Governor.
  I was happy to visit the State of Delaware on a number of occasions 
and work with the Governor of Delaware. The people of Delaware are very 
fortunate to have someone of the caliber of Tom Carper representing 
them in the Senate. He is a great addition to Joe Biden. They are good 
Senators. I do not know how you can do better than the two Senators 
from the State of Delaware.
  Senator Carper's work on the committee and on this bill has been 
exemplary. He reached out on a bipartisan basis to Senators Crapo and 
Voinovich. He and Senator Voinovich were fellow Governors. As a result 
of his advocacy, he worked very hard with Senator Voinovich to satisfy 
the problems he had with this bill. I express my appreciation to the 
Senator from Delaware.
  I was very happy to hear from Senator Smith that we do now have a 
statement from the administration on this legislation. This is, in 
effect, icing on the cake. This legislation has been long in coming. 
The prior administration tried very hard to get it before the Congress. 
For various procedural reasons, we were unable to do so for 2 years. On 
a bipartisan basis, the committee was able to report this important 
legislation for consideration by the Senate.
  This legislation is representative of how we should operate in the 
Senate. It is a bill we recognize was controversial. It is a bill about 
which we recognize there were disparate views in the committee, and we 
also realize the Senate was divided 50/50, just as the Environment and 
Public Works Committee was divided 50/50. Republicans reached

[[Page S3904]]

Democrats, Democrats reached Republicans, and we came up with this 
legislation.
  This is very good legislation; 500,000 sites in America will benefit 
from this legislation. Billions of dollars will go to local 
communities. Hundreds of thousands of jobs, in fact 600,000 jobs, will 
be required to clean up these sites. This is important because, as we 
indicated earlier this morning, there are corner service stations in 
urban areas upon which nothing can be built. People will not touch them 
because they are an old service station and there may be Superfund 
liability. This legislation takes care of that.
  Corner service stations all over America will be cleaned up and 
something built which will contribute to the local community.
  There are dry cleaning establishments all over America. We do not 
have big dry cleaners. They are all small. All over America we have old 
dry cleaning establishments. New businesses will not touch them because 
of possible Superfund liability. This legislation takes care of all 
that.
  This is what the American people want in sending us an equally 
divided Senate. This is what the people deserve. This legislation will 
go a long way toward making people feel good about Government.
  It has been a pleasure working with the Senator from New Hampshire, 
as I have already stated. This is a joint effort. I commend and applaud 
the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Chafee, and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, Senator Boxer, for their outstanding work.

  Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this matter?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 352 is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 352) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended, is agreed to.


       regarding consultation with the states on new information

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity 
to clarify some issues related to the Brownfields Revitalization and 
Environmental Restoration Act. Is it the Chairman's understanding that 
the exception under which the President may bring an enforcement action 
following new information becoming available is to occur after the 
Administrator has consulted with the State?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. My colleague from Ohio is correct. The 
managers' amendment clarifies the role of the State when new 
information has become available. Specifically, the Administrator must 
consult with the State before an enforcement action can be taken. 
Additionally, the State's records must be consulted to determine 
whether the new information was known by the State as defined in the 
legislation.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Is it also correct that this provision does not limit 
the Administrator of the EPA from making a determination, based on new 
information, that the conditions at the facility present a threat that 
requires further remediation?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, The managers' amendment states that consultation 
with the State shall not limit the ability of the Administrator in 
making a determination, as the result of new information, that 
contamination or conditions at a facility present a threat requiring 
further remediation to protect public health or welfare or the 
environment. Consultation with the State is important and is addressed 
in this section and other portions of the bill. It is not intended, 
however, to be an open-ended process. Consultation should not delay or 
prohibit the Administrator's ability to determine that a site presents 
a threat that requires further remediation.
  Mr. REID. I am very pleased that we were able to resolve the concerns 
raised by my colleague Mr. Voinovich at the Committee markup, and wish 
to thank him for working with us to reach this resolution.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank my colleagues for clarifying the role of the 
States in making these determinations.


                       Regarding Petroleum Sites

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman and 
ranking member if they agree with my interpretation of the Inhofe 
amendment adopted as part of the managers' package.
  This amendment ensures that certain sites that have been contaminated 
by petroleum or petroleum products, ``petroleum contaminated'', will be 
eligible for funding under title I of this bill, by expressly adding 
these sites to the definition of ``brownfield sites,'' and specifically 
authorizing funding for the characterization, assessment and 
remediation of these sites. These petroleum-contaminated sites must 
meet several conditions to be eligible for funding under this new 
provision.
  First, the site must be relatively low risk, as compared with other 
petroleum-only sites in the State. This provision does not presuppose 
that each State has conducted a ranking of its petroleum sites, or 
require that it do so. Rather, we are aware that most States already 
have experience in making determinations as to which petroleum 
contaminated sites pose the greatest risk, under section 9003(h)(3) of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), States are directed to prioritize 
sites for corrective action based on ``which pose the greatest threat 
to human health and the environment.'' The Committee contemplates that 
States will be able to use similar approaches to those used under 
section 9003(h)(3) to identify sites that are appropriately covered by 
this provision, those that are relatively low risk.
  Section 9003(h)(3) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act directs states, 
who are authorized under section 9003(h)(7), to prioritize underground 
storage tank, ``UST'', sites. Under 9003(h)(3), a priority for 
remediation is given to UST sites which pose the greatest threat to 
human health and the environment, as determined by those States. The 
new section 128(a)(D)(ii)(II) of S. 350 addresses sites that meet all 
of the following conditions: there are no viable responsible parties, 
otherwise known as abandoned sites; the petroleum site is not subject 
to an order under section 9003(h) of SWDA; and the petroleum 
contamination is relatively low risk. Relatively low risk should be 
determined by comparing the relative risk of a given site to UST and 
other petroleum contaminated sites in that State. The determination as 
to whether a particular site meets the ``relatively low risk'' 
criterion will be made by the entity that is awarding the grant or loan 
to the person doing the work.
  Funds authorized under the new section 128(l)(2) shall be used for 
site remediation, characterization, or assessment. If a site uses funds 
authorized by section 128(l)(2) to assess a site, and it is later 
determined (after the assessment) that the site is eligible for other 
applicable Federal and State funding, funds from those other applicable 
Federal or State programs shall be used first. This will preserve funds 
authorized under this bill for sites that do not have access to another 
source of funding.
  Neither this nor any other provision of S. 350, in any way, alters 
the exclusion of petroleum or petroleum products from the definition of 
``hazardous substance'' under section 101 of CERCLA.
  Mr. CRAPO. I commend the Senator from Oklahoma for this amendment and 
am also interested in knowing if this interpretation is consistent with 
the intent of the chairman and the ranking member of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee.
  Mr. SMITH. The Senator from Oklahoma's interpretation of the 
amendment is consistent with my interpretation of the provisions and I 
am pleased we were able to include it in the manager's amendment.
  Mr. REID. I agree with the chairman. I hope that this section will 
provide an additional tool for addressing abandoned petroleum sites. 
The bill includes mechanisms to allow us to evaluate how this and other 
provisions of the bill are working, and whether the funding levels are 
sufficient.
  Mr. BOND. I'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member for

[[Page S3905]]

their cooperation on this amendment and commend the Senator from 
Oklahoma for his leadership on this important initiative, which will 
provide a vital tool for brownfields cleanups.


       regarding ``contract carriage'' and ``spur track'' issues

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as we have discussed here today, I hope 
there will be additional opportunities for the committee to consider 
needed legislative changes to sections of Superfund that are not 
related to brownfields.
  There are two such changes which clarify liability for common 
carriers and rail spur track owners I would like to bring to your 
attention which this committee has favorably considered in past 
Superfund bills.
  The first provision would conform the existing law to the industry's 
current practice of using contract carriage agreements by clarifying 
that a railroad would not be liable for the transportation of hazardous 
substances under the terms of a contract with a shipper who later 
mishandles the commodity. This is a technical amendment which is 
necessary to reflect the fact that most rail shipments today move under 
the terms of transportation contracts, not tariffs, as was the case 
when CERCLA was first enacted in 1980.
  The second issue addresses contamination on or around spur tracks, 
which run to and through shipper facilities. The current law states 
that railroads can be potentially liable as landowners for such 
contamination even when it is caused by a shipper. This change would 
hold the railroad liable only if the railroad caused or contributed to 
the release of the hazardous substance.
  Both these issues recognize that a railroad, as a common carrier, 
should not be liable when it cannot control its customer's handling of 
hazardous substances, and the customer's actions result in the release 
of a hazardous substance that creates CERCLA liability.
  These noncontroversial changes are simple and needed reforms to the 
Superfund law, and I would hope you could support including these 
provisions in later Superfund legislation or even, if the opportunity 
presents itself as part of this brownfields bill.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I would say to my good friend that I 
agree with these provisions and have, in fact, supported them in the 
past. I will continue to support them, but as we have discussed it will 
be difficult to include them in the brownfields bill. I would certainly 
support the inclusion of these provisions in any Superfund legislation 
that the committee acts on later this year.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the chairman for his support on these two 
provisions.


                   regarding environmental insurance

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the subcommittee 
chairman and ranking minority member and the Environment and Public 
Works Committee chairman in helping craft this brownfields bill. I 
would like to clarify one matter in the managers' amendment regarding 
the use of funding under this bill to purchase certain environmental 
insurance at brownfield sites.
  S. 350 clarifies that a person who receives federal funds for 
characterization, assessment and cleanup of a brownfield site, and is 
performing that work, will be able to use a portion of that money to 
purchase insurance for the characterization, assessment or remediation 
of that site. While I believe this can be a valuable tool, I would like 
to ensure that the limited brownfield funding is maximized to 
facilitate cleanup and reuse of as many sites as possible.
  I would like to confirm with the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment that the language is 
limited to the purchase of environmental insurance by persons 
performing the actions, that the purchase of environmental insurance is 
intended to be a relatively minor percentage of the overall costs at a 
site, and that its primary purpose is to insure against costs of 
assessment, characterization and cleanup being higher than anticipated.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada is correct. This 
provision is intended only to clarify that a person performing the 
characterization, assessment, or cleanup can use federal assistance to 
purchase environmental insurance such as cost-cap insurance, which is 
one of the most frequently used policies at brownfield sites. Such a 
policy would cover the costs of cleanup if the actual costs exceeded 
estimated costs. It is my understanding that this clarifies EPA's 
current practice. This protection can give a developer the necessary 
comfort to invest in a site. In addition, the purchase of such 
environmental insurance with federal assistance is not intended to be a 
significant portion of the overall assessment, characterization, or 
cleanup costs at a site. The Senator from Nevada also is correct 
regarding the purpose of these policies: no portion of the funding 
under this bill would be available for other types of insurance.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's clarification of 
this matter.


Regarding a Mechanism for Citizens to Request State Officials to Assess 
                      a Potential Brownfields Site

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank Chairmen Smith and Chafee and 
Senators Reid and Boxer for agreeing to further enhance opportunities 
for public participation in state brownfields programs under S. 350. 
Specifically, the bill as amended would provide an opportunity for 
individuals to request that a nearby brownfields site be assessed under 
a state program, and for such requests to be considered and responded 
to in an appropriate manner by the State. Although states complying 
with the other state program elements in the bill must survey and 
inventory sites in the state, there may be rare instances when sites 
are inadvertently overlooked. I am particularly concerned about this 
happening in communities that may be small or sparsely populated, low-
income, minority, or otherwise socially or politically disenfranchised.
  This new provision will help to ensure that in those rare 
circumstances that a site is overlooked in a State's survey process, 
someone who lives or works in the community can bring a potential 
brownfields site to the attention of the State and request that the 
site be assessed under the state's brownfields program. The intent is 
to provide states with the flexibility to set up this element of their 
state brownfields program as they best see fit, and the provision does 
not create an appeals process. Is that your understanding of the 
provision?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes, that is my understanding of the 
provision.
  Mr. REID. That is my understanding as well.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I agree that it is important for States to be 
responsive to the concerns of their citizens. As a former Governor of 
Ohio, I have the unique first-hand experience of dealing with such 
issues and the role of the state. In fact, Ohio law already requires 
the state to respond to environmental complaints.
  The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, OEPA, responds under the 
verified complaint procedure required under State law. Under this 
statute, the Director of OEPA must take action by expeditiously 
investigating claims and following up within a specified period of 
time. If enforcement action is warranted, then the Director must 
contact the State Attorney General to initiate proper proceedings.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is important for a State to be 
responsive to concerns brought up by its citizens. For example, under 
the New Hampshire program, if a citizen contacts the Department of 
Environmental Services, DES, regarding a site, the first and foremost 
consideration is to carefully assess the potential risk to human health 
and the environment. Both written and telephone communications are 
assigned to DES's Special Investigations Section in the Waste 
Management Division. There are four individuals who are involved in 
this work and provide round-the-clock coverage.
  DES first checks the data base to verify that the inquiry is indeed a 
new matter and decides, based upon the information offered, the level 
of risk and hence the immediacy of response required. Departmental 
protocol governs this practice. An essential element of this approach 
is based upon the intuitive, knowledgeable sense of the staff person 
receiving the call. An attempt is made to identify matters that require 
immediate response from others of a less immediate nature. In the event 
of a grave emergency, DES or the

[[Page S3906]]

on-scene commander, may request assistance from EPA's emergency 
responders.
  In the case where a site warrants an emergency response, the citizen 
inquirer would be given information as soon as the site was in control 
and the responders or other Division staff could be made available to 
provide details. If the case is determined to be a new site, the 
citizen would be responded to when an initial site drive by or on the 
ground investigation had been made. In this case an inquirer would be 
told what to expect for a response time, if a response were necessary.
  An inquiry related to a known site which was not an emergency 
situation would be addressed by the assigned Project Manager, who could 
comment on planned or on-going work at the site and the nature or 
degree of risk. DES also would seek to determine whether the inquirer 
had new information that might be relevant. Most often, DES would make 
an initial response to an individual within 2-3 days.
  As you can see, Senator Clinton, the State of New Hampshire has a 
very responsive brownfields program that takes seriously all requests 
and inquires made by its citizens.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Senator Smith and Senator Voinovich. I think 
everyone would agree with you that it is important for states to be 
responsive to citizens' concerns, and that many states are doing just 
that.


                         regarding information

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the ``information'' referred to in new 
section 129(b)(1)(B)(iv) of S. 350 pertains to information that 
indicates that a site presents a threat requiring further remediation 
to protect public health or welfare or the environment. The committee 
expects that the Administrator shall use her discretion in determining 
whether this information is both credible and relevant to the site.
  ``Information'' consists of information not known by the State on the 
earlier of the date on which cleanup was either approved or completed. 
The ``information'' need not be specific to this site; however, it must 
be relevant to the site in question. After careful consideration of the 
quality, objectivity and weight of the ``information'' regarding the 
site, the Administrator shall decide whether this information is 
adequate to determine there is a threat to public health or welfare or 
the environment.
  This ``information'' triggers this section only if the Administrator 
determines that it indicates that such contamination or conditions at 
the facility present a threat requiring further remediation to protect 
public health or welfare or the environment. Do the chairman and 
ranking member agree with this interpretation of ``information?''
  Mr. REID. Yes, that is correct. This provision is intended to ensure 
that the public health and the environment are protected from such 
threats.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I share my colleagues' interpretation of 
this provision.


                     regarding cattle dipping vats

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to confirm with the chairman 
and ranking Democratic member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee that certain sites in my State would be eligible for the 
benefits of this important brownfields legislation. In several States, 
including my State of Florida, there are a number of sites that were 
contaminated in the early to mid-1900's by chemicals used for tick-
prevention measures required by the United States Department of 
Agriculture. So-called cattle dipping vats were used to eliminate ticks 
that threatened our Nation's cattle. It is my understanding that these 
sites would be eligible for the benefits of this important brownfields 
legislation. Is that your understanding?
  Mr. REID. I agree with the Senator from Florida that sites 
contaminated by the historic practice of dipping cattle to eliminate 
ticks are eligible for benefits under this bill, so long as any 
particular site meets the definitions and conditions in the bill.
  Under the bill funding is available for assessment and cleanup of 
``brownfield sites,'' which are ``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.'' It is my understanding that the sites the Senator 
describes would meet this portion of the definition of eligible 
brownfield sites under the bill.
  The bill goes on to exclude certain categories of sites, such as 
those that are listed or proposed for listing on the Superfund National 
Priorities List, and those that are subject to orders or cleanup 
requirements under other Federal environmental laws. So long as the 
sites the Senator refers to are not within any of the exclusions they 
would be eligible.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I can appreciate the concerns raised by 
the Senator from Florida. I agree with Senator Reid that sites 
contaminated as a result of former cattle dipping practices and which 
meet the definitions and conditions for sites to obtain funding and 
liability relief under this bill will be eligible for the benefits of 
this bill.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the chairman and ranking Democratic member for 
that clarification. I believe that since the federal government 
required these dipping vats to be constructed, the individuals who 
complied with that federal requirement should be excluded from all 
liability under Superfund. However, I also believe that the brownfields 
legislation we are considering today is a critical step forward in our 
ability to clean-up sites around the country. I look forward to working 
with both of you and our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee to take additional steps forward in the months to come.


                 alaska native corporations eligibility

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee for developing a 
bill that has secured enormous bipartisan support in this Congress. 
This is an important program for many states.
  I have considered cosponsoring the measure. However I withhold 
sponsorship at this time because there is a problem relative to which 
native entities in Alaska are eligible for such funding.
  Alaska native corporations have no government powers but manage, as 
private landowners, twelve percent of our state.
  The federal government has recognized 229 tribes in Alaska most of 
which do not have governmental power over land.
  The bill is ambiguous as to whether Alaska native corporations, are 
eligible entities as ``Indian Tribes.''
  I have not raised this with the committee, but do request assurance 
that the conference will address this matter.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I would like to work with the Senator on 
that issue.


                   EDA and HUD developmental funding

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleagues, 
Senators Jeffords, Reid, and Smith from New Hampshire in a colloquy on 
the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 
2001, S. 350. I am a co-sponsor and strong supporter of this 
brownfields revitalization bill. I commend Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee 
and Boxer for their hard work on crafting bipartisan brownfields 
legislation which will help communities return these former commercial 
and industrial properties back to productive use. The financial 
incentives and statutory reforms provided in S. 350 will dramatically 
improve our communities' efforts to redevelop brownfields.
  As cochairmen of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, Senator Jeffords 
and I will introduce bills to complement S. 350 by providing 
communities with economic resources to redevelop brownfield sites. Our 
first proposal would expand efforts of the Department of Commerce's 
Economic Development Administration, or EDA, to assist distressed 
communities. The bill will provide EDA with a dedicated source of 
funding for brownfields redevelopment and increased funding flexibility 
to help States, local communities and nonprofit organizations restore 
these sites to productive use. Our second proposal would permit the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development to make brownfields 
economic development initiative grants independent of economic 
development loan guarantees, and set-aside a portion of the funding for 
smaller communities. I hope that Senators Smith and Reid will work with 
us to get our proposed legislation enacted.

[[Page S3907]]

  These proposals would be very complementary to S. 350. Economic 
development funding through EDA and HUD along with the financial 
resources and liability clarifications contained in S. 350 would 
provide communities with the help they need to return brownfields to 
productive uses. Together, our proposals and S. 350, would provide 
communities with the financial assistance needed to leverage private 
investment in brownfields and accelerate reuse.
  A number of national economic development organizations support this 
proposal, including the US Conference of Mayors, National League of 
Cities, National Association of Counties, National Association of 
Development Organizations, National Association of Regional Councils, 
National Association of Towns and Townships, Enterprise Foundation, 
National Congress for Community Economic Development, Smart Growth 
America, Council for Urban Economic Development, National Association 
of Installation Developers, and the National Business Incubator 
Association.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President I join my colleague, Mr. Levin, in 
commending Senators Smith of New Hampshire, Chafee, Reid, and Boxer for 
their efforts to promote brownfield revitalization. I am a co-sponsor 
and strong supporter of S. 350, and believe this legislation is long 
overdue.
  Senator Levin and I have been working on complementary legislation. 
The proposal would provide the Economic Development Administration 
(EDA) with a formal channel of funding to help communities turn 
brownfields environmental liabilities into economic assets. This 
legislation would provide targeted assistance to projects that 
redevelop brownfields. EDA funding for brownfields will help 
communities get the financial assistance needed to leverage private 
investment in brownfields. With over 450,000 brownfields sites 
nationwide, it is imperative that the federal government assist local 
cleanup efforts that in turn will stimulate economic revitalization.
  The second legislative proposal addresses requirements on the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Brownfields 
Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant program that are hampering 
small city brownfields revitalization efforts. BEDI's required link to 
Section 108 serves as a deterrent to many small towns in Vermont and 
throughout the nation, who do not have the resources to commit to 
brownfields. Our bill would permit HUD to make grants available 
independent of economic development loan guarantees.
  I am very hopeful that the Chairman and Ranking Member of Committee 
on Environment and Public Works will work with us to advance this 
important legislative initiatives.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Michigan, Mr. Levin, and my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, for 
their strong support of S. 350 and commend them for their efforts to 
provide communities with economic development resources to redevelop 
brownfields. I commit to my colleagues, Mr. Levin and Mr. Jeffords, 
that I will work with Senator Smith to have a hearing on their Economic 
Development Administration brownfield proposal. I look forward to 
working with them to explore options to further address the reuse of 
brownfields and look forward to working with them to protect our 
communities.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank Mr. Jeffords and Mr. Levin for 
their support and co-sponsorship of S. 350. I appreciate their efforts 
to craft legislation complementary to S. 350. As such, I will look 
closely at their proposals and work with them to further advance the 
issue of brownfield redevelopment.


                             Indian Tribes

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I yield.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I believe that this 
is a good piece of legislation that will promote the cleanup and reuse 
of business and industrial sites that now stand essentially abandoned. 
I would just like to clarify one point. I note that throughout much of 
the Bill any reference to `States' is accompanied by a reference to 
`Indian Tribes'. However, this is not the case in section 
129(b)(1)(B)(ii), as added by section 301 of the Bill, regarding 
federal enforcement actions in the event of contamination migrating 
across a State line. Could the Senator confirm that it is the intention 
of the legislation that references in that section to `States' should 
extend to `Indian Tribes'?
  Mr. REID. Yes Senator, that is the intention.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading and was 
read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass? The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hutchinson
       
  The bill (S. 350), as amended, was passed, 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;
       ``(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,

[[Page S3908]]

     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 a site that--
       ``(i) meets the definition of `brownfield site' under 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C); and
       ``(ii)(I) is contaminated by a controlled substance (as 
     defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 802));
       ``(II)(aa) is contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum 
     product excluded from the definition of `hazardous substance' 
     under section 101; and
       ``(bb) is a site determined by the Administrator or the 
     State, as appropriate, to be--

       ``(AA) of relatively low risk, as compared with other 
     petroleum-only sites in the State; and
       ``(BB) a site for which there is no viable responsible 
     party and which will be assessed, investigated, or cleaned up 
     by a person that is not potentially liable for cleaning up 
     the site; and

       ``(cc) is not subject to any order issued under section 
     9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h)); 
     or
       ``(III) is 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 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 similar factors as the Administrator 
     considers appropriate to consider for the purposes of this 
     section.
       ``(4) 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) such other similar factors as 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)), excluding the 
     cost of compliance with laws applicable to the cleanup.
       ``(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 S3909]]

     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.
       ``(4) Insurance.--A recipient of a grant or loan awarded 
     under subsection (b) or (c) that performs a characterization, 
     assessment, or remediation of a brownfield site may use a 
     portion of the grant or loan to purchase insurance for the 
     characterization, assessment, or remediation of that 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) at least annually, complete a 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, including threats in areas 
     in which there is a greater-than-normal incidence of diseases 
     or conditions (including cancer, asthma, or birth defects) 
     that may be associated with exposure to hazardous substances, 
     pollutants, or contaminants.
       ``(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.
       ``(J) The extent to which a grant would address or 
     facilitate the identification and reduction of threats to the 
     health or welfare of children, pregnant women, minority or 
     low-income communities, or other sensitive populations.
       ``(f) Implementation of Brownfields Programs.--
       ``(1) Establishment of program.--The Administrator may 
     provide, or fund eligible entities or nonprofit organizations 
     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.
       ``(4) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Inspector General of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress 
     a report that provides a description of the management of the 
     program (including a description of the allocation of funds 
     under this section).
       ``(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--
       ``(1) include a requirement of the National Contingency 
     Plan only to the extent that the requirement is relevant and 
     appropriate to the program under this section, as determined 
     by the Administrator; and
       ``(2) be subject to an agreement that--
       ``(A) requires the recipient to--
       ``(i) comply with all applicable Federal and State laws; 
     and
       ``(ii) ensure that the cleanup protects human health and 
     the environment;
       ``(B) requires that the recipient use the grant or loan 
     exclusively for purposes specified in subsection (b) or (c), 
     as applicable;
       ``(C) 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
       ``(D) 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) Effect on Federal Laws.--Nothing in this section 
     affects any liability or response authority under any Federal 
     law, including--
       ``(1) this Act (including the last sentence of section 
     101(14));
       ``(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.).
       ``(l) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $200,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
       ``(2) Use of certain funds.--Of the amount made available 
     under paragraph (1), $50,000,000, or, if the amount made 
     available is less than $200,000,000, 25 percent of the amount 
     made available, shall be used for site characterization, 
     assessment, and remediation of facilities described in 
     section 101(39)(D)(ii)(II).''.

             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

[[Page S3910]]

       ``(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 or natural resource 
     restoration 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 the 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, or had reason to have, 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.--With respect to a hazardous substance 
     from 1 or more sources that are not on the property of a 
     person that is a contiguous property owner that enters ground 
     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 or natural 
     resource restoration 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 or natural resource restoration 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 owner, obtain from the owner 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), 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:

[[Page S3911]]

       ``(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.
       ``(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 preliminary assessment or 
     site inspection; and
       ``(II) after consultation with the State, determines or has 
     determined that the site obtains a preliminary score 
     sufficient for possible listing on the National Priorities 
     List, or that the site otherwise 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) purchase insurance or 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;
       ``(ii) prior notice and opportunity for comment on proposed 
     cleanup plans and site activities; and
       ``(iii) a mechanism by which--

       ``(I) a person that is or may be affected by a release or 
     threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or 
     contaminant at a brownfield site located in the community in 
     which the person works or resides may request the conduct of 
     a site assessment; and
       ``(II) an appropriate State official shall consider and 
     appropriately respond to a request under subclause (I).

       ``(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

[[Page S3912]]

       ``(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 
     administrative or judicial 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, after consultation with the 
     State, 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. 
     Consultation with the State shall not limit the ability of 
     the Administrator to make this determination.
       ``(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 
     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 February 15, 2001.
       ``(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.''.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I move to reconsider the 
vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________