[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10893-H10904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2869) to provide certain relief for small businesses from 
liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act of 1980, and to amend such Act to promote the cleanup 
and resuse of brownfields, to provide financial assistance for 
brownfields revitalization, to enhance State response programs, and for 
other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2869

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Liability 
     Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act''.

              TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY PROTECTION

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Liability 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 102. SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY RELIEF.

       (a) Exemptions.--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 new subsections:
       ``(o) De Micromis Exemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     person shall not be liable, with respect to response costs at 
     a facility on the National Priorities List, under this Act if 
     liability is based solely on paragraph (3) or (4) of 
     subsection (a), and the person, except as provided in 
     paragraph (4) of this subsection, can demonstrate that--
       ``(A) the total amount of the material containing hazardous 
     substances that the person arranged for disposal or treatment 
     of, arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or 
     treatment of, or accepted for transport for disposal or 
     treatment, at the facility was less than 110 gallons of 
     liquid materials or less than 200 pounds of solid materials 
     (or such greater or lesser amounts as the Administrator may 
     determine by regulation); and
       ``(B) all or part of the disposal, treatment, or transport 
     concerned occurred before April 1, 2001.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a case 
     in which--
       ``(A) the President determines that--
       ``(i) the materials containing hazardous substances 
     referred to in paragraph (1) have contributed significantly 
     or could contribute significantly, either individually or in 
     the aggregate, to the cost of the response action or natural 
     resource restoration with respect to the facility; or
       ``(ii) the person has failed to comply with an information 
     request or administrative subpoena issued by the President 
     under this Act or has impeded or is impeding, through action 
     or inaction, the performance of a response action or natural 
     resource restoration with respect to the facility; or
       ``(B) a person has been convicted of a criminal violation 
     for the conduct to which the exemption would apply, and that 
     conviction has not been vitiated on appeal or otherwise.
       ``(3) No judicial review.--A determination by the President 
     under paragraph (2)(A) shall not be subject to judicial 
     review.
       ``(4) Nongovernmental third-party contribution actions.--In 
     the case of a contribution action, with respect to response 
     costs at a facility on the National Priorities List, brought 
     by a party, other than a Federal, State, or local government, 
     under this Act, the burden of proof shall be on the party 
     bringing the action to demonstrate that the conditions 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) and (B) of this subsection are 
     not met.
       ``(p) Municipal Solid Waste Exemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection, a person shall not be liable, with respect 
     to response costs at a facility on the National Priorities 
     List, under paragraph (3) of subsection (a) for municipal 
     solid waste disposed of at a facility if the person, except 
     as provided in paragraph (5) of this subsection, can 
     demonstrate that the person is--
       ``(A) an owner, operator, or lessee of residential property 
     from which all of the person's municipal solid waste was 
     generated with respect to the facility;
       ``(B) a business entity (including a parent, subsidiary, or 
     affiliate of the entity) that, during its 3 taxable years 
     preceding the date of transmittal of written notification 
     from the President of its potential liability under this 
     section, employed on average not more than 100 full-time 
     individuals, or the equivalent thereof, and that is a small 
     business concern (within the meaning of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.)) from which was generated all of 
     the municipal solid waste attributable to the entity with 
     respect to the facility; or
       ``(C) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 
     section 501(a) of such Code that, during its taxable year 
     preceding the date of transmittal of written notification 
     from the President of its potential liability under this 
     section, employed not more than 100 paid individuals at the 
     location from which was generated all of the municipal solid 
     waste attributable to the organization with respect to the 
     facility.

     For purposes of this subsection, the term `affiliate' has the 
     meaning of that term provided in the definition of `small 
     business concern' in regulations promulgated by the Small 
     Business Administration in accordance with the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.).
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a case 
     in which the President determines that--
       ``(A) the municipal solid waste referred to in paragraph 
     (1) has contributed significantly or could contribute 
     significantly, either individually or in the aggregate, to 
     the cost of the response action or natural resource 
     restoration with respect to the facility;
       ``(B) the person has failed to comply with an information 
     request or administrative subpoena issued by the President 
     under this Act; or
       ``(C) the person has impeded or is impeding, through action 
     or inaction, the performance of a response action or natural 
     resource restoration with respect to the facility.
       ``(3) No judicial review.--A determination by the President 
     under paragraph (2) shall not be subject to judicial review.
       ``(4) Definition of municipal solid waste.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `municipal solid waste' means waste material--
       ``(i) generated by a household (including a single or 
     multifamily residence); and
       ``(ii) generated by a commercial, industrial, or 
     institutional entity, to the extent that the waste material--

       ``(I) is essentially the same as waste normally generated 
     by a household;
       ``(II) is collected and disposed of with other municipal 
     solid waste as part of normal municipal solid waste 
     collection services; and
       ``(III) contains a relative quantity of hazardous 
     substances no greater than the relative quantity of hazardous 
     substances contained in waste material generated by a typical 
     single-family household.

       ``(B) Examples.--Examples of municipal solid waste under 
     subparagraph (A) include food and yard waste, paper, 
     clothing, appliances, consumer product packaging, disposable 
     diapers, office supplies, cosmetics, glass and metal food 
     containers, elementary or secondary school science laboratory 
     waste, and household hazardous waste.
       ``(C) Exclusions.--The term `municipal solid waste' does 
     not include--
       ``(i) combustion ash generated by resource recovery 
     facilities or municipal incinerators; or
       ``(ii) waste material from manufacturing or processing 
     operations (including pollution control operations) that is 
     not essentially the same as waste normally generated by 
     households.
       ``(5) Burden of proof.--In the case of an action, with 
     respect to response costs at a facility on the National 
     Priorities List, brought under section 107 or 113 by--
       ``(A) a party, other than a Federal, State, or local 
     government, with respect to municipal solid waste disposed of 
     on or after April 1, 2001; or
       ``(B) any party with respect to municipal solid waste 
     disposed of before April 1, 2001, the burden of proof shall 
     be on the party bringing the action to demonstrate that the 
     conditions described in paragraphs (1) and (4) for exemption 
     for entities and organizations described in paragraph (1)(B) 
     and (C) are not met.
       ``(6) Certain actions not permitted.--No contribution 
     action may be brought by a party, other than a Federal, 
     State, or local government, under this Act with respect to 
     circumstances described in paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(7) Costs and fees.--A nongovernmental entity that 
     commences, after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, a contribution action under this Act shall be 
     liable to the defendant for all reasonable costs of defending 
     the action, including all reasonable attorney's fees and 
     expert witness fees, if the defendant is not liable for 
     contribution based on an exemption under this subsection or 
     subsection (o).''.
       (b) Expedited Settlement.--Section 122(g) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9622(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(7) Reduction in settlement amount based on limited 
     ability to pay.--
       ``(A) In general.--The condition for settlement under this 
     paragraph is that the potentially responsible party is a 
     person who demonstrates to the President an inability or a 
     limited ability to pay response costs.
       ``(B) Considerations.--In determining whether or not a 
     demonstration is made under subparagraph (A) by a person, the 
     President shall take into consideration the ability of the 
     person to pay response costs

[[Page H10894]]

     and still maintain its basic business operations, including 
     consideration of the overall financial condition of the 
     person and demonstrable constraints on the ability of the 
     person to raise revenues.
       ``(C) Information.--A person requesting settlement under 
     this paragraph shall promptly provide the President with all 
     relevant information needed to determine the ability of the 
     person to pay response costs.
       ``(D) Alternative payment methods.--If the President 
     determines that a person is unable to pay its total 
     settlement amount at the time of settlement, the President 
     shall consider such alternative payment methods as may be 
     necessary or appropriate.
       ``(8) Additional conditions for expedited settlements.--
       ``(A) Waiver of claims.--The President shall require, as a 
     condition for settlement under this subsection, that a 
     potentially responsible party waive all of the claims 
     (including a claim for contribution under this Act) that the 
     party may have against other potentially responsible parties 
     for response costs incurred with respect to the facility, 
     unless the President determines that requiring a waiver would 
     be unjust.
       ``(B) Failure to comply.--The President may decline to 
     offer a settlement to a potentially responsible party under 
     this subsection if the President determines that the 
     potentially responsible party has failed to comply with any 
     request for access or information or an administrative 
     subpoena issued by the President under this Act or has 
     impeded or is impeding, through action or inaction, the 
     performance of a response action with respect to the 
     facility.
       ``(C) Responsibility to provide information and access.--A 
     potentially responsible party that enters into a settlement 
     under this subsection shall not be relieved of the 
     responsibility to provide any information or access requested 
     in accordance with subsection (e)(3)(B) or section 104(e).
       ``(9) Basis of determination.--If the President determines 
     that a potentially responsible party is not eligible for 
     settlement under this subsection, the President shall provide 
     the reasons for the determination in writing to the 
     potentially responsible party that requested a settlement 
     under this subsection.
       ``(10) Notification.--As soon as practicable after receipt 
     of sufficient information to make a determination, the 
     President shall notify any person that the President 
     determines is eligible under paragraph (1) of the person's 
     eligibility for an expedited settlement.
       ``(11) No judicial review.--A determination by the 
     President under paragraph (7), (8), (9), or (10) shall not be 
     subject to judicial review.
       ``(12) Notice of settlement.--After a settlement under this 
     subsection becomes final with respect to a facility, the 
     President shall promptly notify potentially responsible 
     parties at the facility that have not resolved their 
     liability to the United States of the settlement.''.

     SEC. 103. EFFECT ON CONCLUDED ACTIONS.

       The amendments made by this title shall not apply to or in 
     any way affect any settlement lodged in, or judgment issued 
     by, a United States District Court, or any administrative 
     settlement or order entered into or issued by the United 
     States or any State, before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

   TITLE II--BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Brownfields Revitalization 
     and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001''.

             Subtitle A--Brownfields Revitalization Funding

     SEC. 211. 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.
       ``(C) Site-by-site determinations.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (B) and on a site-by-site basis, the President 
     may authorize financial assistance under section 104(k) 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 
     104(k), 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.--Section 104 of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(k) Brownfields Revitalization Funding.--
       ``(1) Definition of eligible entity.--In this subsection, 
     the term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) a general purpose unit of local government;
       ``(B) 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;
       ``(C) a government entity created by a State legislature;
       ``(D) a regional council or group of general purpose units 
     of local government;
       ``(E) a redevelopment agency that is chartered or otherwise 
     sanctioned by a State;
       ``(F) a State;
       ``(G) an Indian Tribe other than in Alaska, or
       ``(H) an Alaska Native Regional Corporation and an Alaska 
     Native Village Corporation as those terms are defined in the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 and 
     following) and the Metlakatla Indian community.
       ``(2) Brownfield site characterization and assessment grant 
     program.--
       ``(A) Establishment of program.--The Administrator shall 
     establish a program to--
       ``(i) provide grants to inventory, characterize, assess, 
     and conduct planning related to brownfield sites under 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) perform targeted site assessments at brownfield 
     sites.
       ``(B) Assistance for site characterization and 
     assessment.--
       ``(i) 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.
       ``(ii) Site characterization and assessment.--A site 
     characterization and assessment carried out with the use of a 
     grant under clause (i) shall be performed in accordance with 
     section 101(35)(B).
       ``(3) Grants and loans for brownfield remediation.--
       ``(A) Grants provided by the president.--Subject to 
     paragraphs (4) and (5), the President shall establish a 
     program to provide grants to--

[[Page H10895]]

       ``(i) eligible entities, to be used for capitalization of 
     revolving loan funds; and
       ``(ii) eligible entities or nonprofit organizations, where 
     warranted, as determined by the President based on 
     considerations under subparagraph (C), 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.
       ``(B) Loans and grants provided by eligible entities.--An 
     eligible entity that receives a grant under subparagraph 
     (A)(i) shall use the grant funds to provide assistance for 
     the remediation of brownfield sites in the form of--
       ``(i) 1 or more loans to an eligible entity, a site owner, 
     a site developer, or another person; or
       ``(ii) 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 subparagraph (C), to remediate sites 
     owned by the eligible entity or nonprofit organization that 
     receives the grant.
       ``(C) Considerations.--In determining whether a grant under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) or (B)(ii) is warranted, the President 
     or the eligible entity, as the case may be, shall take into 
     consideration--
       ``(i) 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;
       ``(ii) 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;
       ``(iii) the extent to which a grant will facilitate the use 
     or reuse of existing infrastructure;
       ``(iv) the benefit of promoting the long-term availability 
     of funds from a revolving loan fund for brownfield 
     remediation; and
       ``(v) such other similar factors as the Administrator 
     considers appropriate to consider for the purposes of this 
     subsection.
       ``(D) Transition.--Revolving loan funds that have been 
     established before the date of enactment of this subsection 
     may be used in accordance with this paragraph.
       ``(4) General provisions.--
       ``(A) Maximum grant amount.--
       ``(i) Brownfield site characterization and assessment.--

       ``(I) In general.--A grant under paragraph (2) may be 
     awarded to an eligible entity on a community-wide or site-by-
     site basis, and 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 subclause (I) 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.

       ``(ii) Brownfield remediation.--A grant under paragraph 
     (3)(A)(i) 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. The Administrator may make an 
     additional grant to an eligible entity described in the 
     previous sentence 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 subsection;
       ``(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 subsection.

       ``(B) Prohibition.--
       ``(i) In general.--No part of a grant or loan under this 
     subsection 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.

       ``(ii) Exclusions.--For the purposes of clause (i)(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.

       ``(C) Assistance for development of local government site 
     remediation programs.--A local government that receives a 
     grant under this subsection may use not to exceed 10 percent 
     of the grant funds to develop and implement a brownfields 
     program that may include--
       ``(i) monitoring the health of populations exposed to 1 or 
     more hazardous substances from a brownfield site; and
       ``(ii) monitoring and enforcement of any institutional 
     control used to prevent human exposure to any hazardous 
     substance from a brownfield site.
       ``(D) Insurance.--A recipient of a grant or loan awarded 
     under paragraph (2) or (3) 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.
       ``(5) Grant applications.--
       ``(A) Submission.--
       ``(i) 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 subsection for 
     1 or more brownfield sites (including information on the 
     criteria used by the Administrator to rank applications under 
     subparagraph (C), to the extent that the information is 
     available).
       ``(II) NCP requirements.--The Administrator may include in 
     any requirement for submission of an application under 
     subclause (I) a requirement of the National Contingency Plan 
     only to the extent that the requirement is relevant and 
     appropriate to the program under this subsection.

       ``(ii) Coordination.--The Administrator shall coordinate 
     with other Federal agencies to assist in making eligible 
     entities aware of other available Federal resources.
       ``(iii) Guidance.--The Administrator shall publish guidance 
     to assist eligible entities in applying for grants under this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Approval.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(i) at least annually, complete a review of applications 
     for grants that are received from eligible entities under 
     this subsection; and
       ``(ii) award grants under this subsection to eligible 
     entities that the Administrator determines have the highest 
     rankings under the ranking criteria established under 
     subparagraph (C).
       ``(C) Ranking criteria.--The Administrator shall establish 
     a system for ranking grant applications received under this 
     paragraph that includes the following criteria:
       ``(i) 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.
       ``(ii) 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.
       ``(iii) 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.
       ``(iv) The extent to which a grant would facilitate the use 
     or reuse of existing infrastructure.
       ``(v) 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.
       ``(vi) 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.
       ``(vii) The extent to which the applicant is eligible for 
     funding from other sources.
       ``(viii) The extent to which a grant will further the fair 
     distribution of funding between urban and nonurban areas.
       ``(ix) 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.
       ``(x) 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.
       ``(6) Implementation of brownfields programs.--
       ``(A) 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.
       ``(B) Funding restrictions.--The total Federal funds to be 
     expended by the Administrator under this paragraph shall not 
     exceed 15 percent of the total amount appropriated to carry 
     out this subsection in any fiscal year.
       ``(7) Audits.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Inspector General of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct such reviews or 
     audits of grants and loans under this subsection as the 
     Inspector General considers necessary to carry out this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Procedure.--An audit under this subparagraph shall be 
     conducted in accordance with the auditing procedures of the 
     General Accounting Office, including chapter 75 of title 31, 
     United States Code.
       ``(C) Violations.--If the Administrator determines that a 
     person that receives a grant or loan under this subsection 
     has violated or is in violation of a condition of the grant,

[[Page H10896]]

     loan, or applicable Federal law, the Administrator may--
       ``(i) terminate the grant or loan;
       ``(ii) require the person to repay any funds received; and
       ``(iii) seek any other legal remedies available to the 
     Administrator.
       ``(D) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, 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 subsection).
       ``(8) Leveraging.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this subsection 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 paragraph (2) or (3).
       ``(9) Agreements.--Each grant or loan made under this 
     subsection shall--
       ``(A) include a requirement of the National Contingency 
     Plan only to the extent that the requirement is relevant and 
     appropriate to the program under this subsection, as 
     determined by the Administrator; and
       ``(B) be subject to an agreement that--
       ``(i) 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;

       ``(ii) requires that the recipient use the grant or loan 
     exclusively for purposes specified in paragraph (2) or (3), 
     as applicable;
       ``(iii) in the case of an application by an eligible entity 
     under paragraph (3)(A), 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
       ``(iv) contains such other terms and conditions as the 
     Administrator determines to be necessary to carry out this 
     subsection.
       ``(10) 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.
       ``(11) Effect on federal laws.--Nothing in this subsection 
     affects any liability or response authority under any Federal 
     law, including--
       ``(A) this Act (including the last sentence of section 
     101(14));
       ``(B) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.);
       ``(C) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1251 et seq.);
       ``(D) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et 
     seq.); and
       ``(E) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.).
       ``(12) Funding.--
       ``(A) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $200,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
       ``(B) Use of certain funds.--Of the amount made available 
     under subparagraph (A), $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).''.

            Subtitle B--Brownfields Liability Clarifications

     SEC. 221. 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:
       ``(q) 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. 222. 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 211(a) of this Act) 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;

[[Page H10897]]

       ``(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 
     this Act) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(r) 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. 223. 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.''.

                  Subtitle C--State Response Programs

     SEC. 231. 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 this Act) is further 
     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,

[[Page H10898]]

     on a site-by-site basis and after consultation with the 
     State, that limitations on enforcement under section 128 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.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 128. 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 104(k)(3); 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
       ``(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)--

[[Page H10899]]

       ``(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. 232. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).


                             general leave

  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill now under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
permitted to yield one-half of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Duncan).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 2869, is the most important 
reform of the Federal superfund program in the past 15 years.

                                  0430

  In fact, it will be the most significant environmental reform 
legislation to pass Congress in several sessions. I am happy to see the 
strong bipartisan support for this bill.
  I want to thank the cosponsors, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); my colleagues on the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone); and I also want to single out the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for the extraordinary work that he has done 
on the part of this bill dealing with small business liability, not 
only in this session but in the last session.
  This legislation deals with Superfund, which is the Nation's major 
program dealing with dangerous hazardous waste sites. As good as the 
goals of Superfund have been, the actual way this program has worked 
has unfortunately been an example of what too frequently is wrong with 
government programs.
  Some responsible observers have estimated that as much as half of all 
the money spent for Superfund goes not for cleaning up anything, but 
goes for attorney fees and regulatory costs.
  The legislation before us today reforms two very important parts of 
Superfund. It provides relief for small businesses from Superfund 
liability in a number of cases, and it reforms the brownfields program.
  Earlier this year, I introduced and the House passed by a margin of 
419 to nothing the small business liability reform legislation. That 
legislation has not moved in the Senate, nor has it had any hearings.
  Also earlier this year the Senate passed by a 99 to nothing vote a 
brownfields reform bill. We have held several hearings on this 
legislation in the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials. 
What this legislation before us today does is combine those two bills 
in one package with the hope that we can facilitate getting those bills 
adopted by Congress as soon as possible and on to the President's desk.
  There are approximately 500,000 brownfield locations in this country. 
Brownfield reform is necessary both to protect the environment and to 
protect public safety. Too often today, current law produces an outcome 
that is very anti-environment.
  Several witnesses testified before our committee that fear of 
liability kept them from cleaning up brownfields, and when people are 
afraid to use a brownfield because of the expense, because of the 
aggravation involved, they go out and acquire green spaces or virgin 
land for development instead of safely cleaning up and developing a 
brownfield.
  At a minimum, reform is required to stop the unnecessary plowing up 
of green spaces in farmlands so they can be covered with asphalt and 
concrete.
  I have been a Member of Congress for six terms, and throughout that 
time I have heard from Members of both parties, of the public, of three 
administrations talk about reforming Superfund, and it has yet to 
happen. Hopefully, today's action will result in a piece of that 
reform.
  Among other things, the brownfields portion of the bill provides 
money and incentives for State clean-ups, includes limits on Federal 
enforcement, and protects contiguous property owners, prospective 
buyers, and innocent landowners. It also creates more liability in the 
brownfields program. The Senate passed a good bill. It is not perfect, 
but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
  The small business liability relief part of this legislation, which 
passed earlier as H.R. 1831, that bill also enjoyed bipartisan support, 
and it seeks to end 20 years' worth of anguish and anxiety for 
individuals, for families, and for small business owners across our 
country.

[[Page H10900]]

  It seeks to address the problems of people like Barbara Williams of 
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, who has come before our committee in the past 
to tell how her former restaurant, the Sunny Ray, became enmeshed in 
the financial quagmire of Superfund liability because she threw chicken 
bones and other ordinary trash in the local dump. That outcome is not 
right, and it is not an isolated story.
  Specifically, the bill before us provides relief to businesses of 100 
people or less who should never have been brought into Superfund and 
its resultant litigation. This legislation protects small businesses 
which disposed of very small amounts of waste or ordinary garbage, and 
it shelters small businesses from serious financial hardship by 
offering the affected businesses expedited settlements. It does not 
save any business from Superfund liability if their waste stream caused 
serious environmental harm.
  The bill provides an appropriate helping hand, while keeping the onus 
on all businesses to be responsible stewards of our environment.
  This legislation is supported by the Bush administration, the 
National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Building and 
Construction Trade Unions, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Real Estate Round Table, including 
the National Association of Realtors and many other groups.
  I would urge all of my colleagues in the House to support the 
legislation before us, which incorporates both brownfields reform and 
small business liability reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and that he may be 
permitted to yield time, as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased tonight that we are finally considering, 
after much delay, H.R. 2869, the Small Business Liability Relief and 
Brownfields Liability Act. The bill is actually a compilation of two 
popular pieces of legislation.
  The first half of the bill is verbatim the provisions of H.R. 1381, 
the Small Business Protection ACt. This bill, which gives Superfund 
liability exemptions for those small businesses that discarded ordinary 
household waste, was favorably reported from our committee and passed 
the House by a vote of 419 to zero on May 22 of this year.
  The second half of the bill contains the provisions of S. 350, the 
Brownfields Revitalization Act, which passed the Senate on April 25 
this year by a vote of 99 to 0.
  Brownfields are a relatively recent complex and dynamic area of 
public policy. Government at all levels, local, State, and Federal, is 
grappling with liability, environmental and cost issues caused by 
brownfields reclamation, and is taking steps to resolve them.
  Despite the popular image of brownfields as an urban problem they are 
found in suburbs and rural areas, too. In my home State of New Jersey, 
which is heavily affected probably with more brown field sites than any 
State in the Nation, but New Jersey, for that reason, has taken a 
leadership role in developing regulatory and funding tools for cleaning 
up brownfields.
  The ability to reuse brownfields is important in implementing a smart 
growth agenda because it blunts pressures to develop untouched green 
spaces, and therefore helps contain sprawl.
  However, brownfields redevelopment is also important because of the 
public policy perspective, which is essentially a tricky one. It is 
clear there is no such thing as a typical brownfields site, nor is 
there one problem common to all sites. They vary greatly in the size, 
location, origin, marketability, and degree of contamination.
  For the most part, none of the sites have been inventoried or 
assessed. Those two facts make it nearly impossible to prescribe a 
single solution which provides redevelopment incentives for the wide 
variety of brownfields sites that currently exist.
  With these in mind, I believe the role for the Federal Government is 
to strike a balance between the desire to provide redevelopment 
incentives that will work for a variety of sites, while at the same 
time maintaining the assurance to affected citizens that these sites 
will no longer threaten the health of the community. This is 
essentially the basis for our legislation.
  The bill provides critically needed funds to assess and clean up 
abandoned and underutilized brownfield sites which will create jobs, 
increase tax revenues, preserve and create open space and parks. In 
addition, it provides legal protections for innocent parties such as 
contiguous property owners, prospective purchasers, and innocent 
landowners. I expect or I hope that this legislation will not only pass 
the House tonight and then the Senate quickly, and then be sent on to 
the President for his approval.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this is really a bill that provides a 
win-win situation. The gentleman from (Mr. Gillmor) talked about all 
the different groups that support it. It is kind of interesting to see 
environmental groups and the building trades and all the different 
business organizations all supporting the same bill, but it really, 
truly is supported by all of them because it is a win-win situation.
  By cleaning up these brownfields sites, we provide an opportunity for 
more jobs while at the same time cleaning up the environment, 
protecting public health, and curbing suburban sprawl.
  I just wanted to say before I conclude, in my home State of New 
Jersey, as I said, there are so many brownfield sites. Just last week I 
visited a site in my district called Edison Crossroads. It is a perfect 
example of the opportunities afforded our communities when this bill 
becomes law.
  This once-abandoned eyesore of a former steel tubing and floor tile 
manufacturing facility. With the opportunity to recover 75 percent of 
its remedial costs and receive liability protection by performing a 
State-approved clean-up, the development company Arc Properties was 
encouraged to move forward with purchasing this site and conducting a 
massive clean-up and reuse project, including the excavation of more 
than 600 tons of tainted soil, nine underground storage tanks, and 
removal of several buildings filled with asbestos.
  Today, and I was there, as I said, last week, the site has attracted 
a Home Depot, Edwards, World Carpet, and many other large companies, 
resulting in a positive source of economic growth for the local and 
regional communities.
  We have a lot of those success stories like this in New jersey: the 
New Jersey Performing Arts Center in Newark, the Jersey Gardens Mall in 
Elizabeth. This brownfield redevelopment, because of what my State is 
doing, is having a huge impact on the New Jersey landscape.
  I am very pleased our subcommittee was able to move this important 
piece of bipartisan legislation. It is truly bipartisan, as the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) mentioned.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the 
chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and of course, the 
staffers that have been working so hard on this bill, as well as the 
members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  I think we are on the threshold of this becoming law. We have been 
working with it on the Democratic side for at lest 4 years, so I am 
really glad to say that the day has finally come when it is going to 
come to pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2869 combines the text of H.R. 1831, 
the Small Business Liability Protection Act, with the text of S. 350, 
the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 
2001.
  I strongly support title I of H.R. 2869. As the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Gillmor) mentioned, Title I earlier passed the House 419 to 
0. Title I will

[[Page H10901]]

protect small businesses from Superfund liability. It prevents lawsuits 
against people and businesses who should not be held liable for the 
costs of cleaning up a Superfund site, either because they send only a 
very small amount of waste to a site, or because their waste was 
ordinary trash.
  I am very proud of this legislation, and was pleased to have 
sponsored this, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Gillmor) 
and others.
  Title II of this legislation is intended to encourage brownfields 
redevelopment. Brownfields redevelopment is very important, as previous 
speakers have mentioned. Our economy is changing. We have lost 
manufacturing jobs. Communities across America have lost thousands of 
jobs.
  I held a subcommittee hearing on this issue of brownfields 
redevelopment earlier this year, and I agree that we should be doing 
everything we can to encourage the redevelopment of these brownfields 
sites. Unfortunately, the brownfields title of this bill is not drafted 
as clearly as I would like, but let me make clear the intent of title 
II is to encourage brownfields redevelopment, and it needs to be read 
with that goal in mind.
  Nothing in this bill should be read to narrow the scope of properties 
eligible for assistance under the bill. All brownfields sites are 
eligible, including properties contaminated by petroleum releases, 
asbestos, or lead paint. Nothing in this bill should be read to make it 
easier to bring lawsuits against innocent landowners.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Gillmor) mentioned earlier that 
some estimates have been as high as half of the amount of the Superfund 
money that has been spent on lawyers and consultants and so forth. I 
have seen estimates much higher even than that.
  The intent of this bill is to increase liability protections for 
people who own property that is next to a contaminated site, and people 
who buy property after all disposal activities have taken place. 
Nothing in this bill should be read to encourage Federal intervention 
when brownfields sites are being cleaned up under State programs.
  The intent of the bill is to prevent unnecessary Federal involvement. 
As with most legislation, its successes or failures will depend on how 
it is implemented. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources 
and Environment, I will be keeping a careful watch on the EPA. I expect 
the EPA to use the discretion given to it under this legislation to 
remove red tape from brownfields sites.
  To date, the EPA has never brought a lawsuit to second-guess a State 
clean-up decision. I do not expect this deference to States to change 
after passage of this legislation.
  Since 1995, the EPA has viewed the Superfund national priorities list 
as a last resort for managing contaminated property. In fact, since 
income taxes, the EPA has had a formal policy of seeking the 
concurrence of a State government before listing a site on the 
Superfund list. I do not expect these policies to change after passage 
of this legislation.
  Let me say to the EPA, it should not look at this bill as an excuse 
or an opportunity to build its bureaucracy or expand its mission.

                              {time}  0445

  The funding in this bill is intended to go into communities around 
the country to encourage and achieve brownfields redevelopment, not 
simply to expand the Federal bureaucracy or add to Federal red tape.
  Finally, I would like to express concern over the applicable to Davis 
Bacon prevailing wage rates to brownfields projects under this bill. 
Davis Bacon wage rates can add unnecessarily to clean up costs. Our 
goal is to get as many sites as possible cleaned up and returned to 
productive use. The higher the cost, the fewer the number of sites that 
can be addressed and actually cleaned up.
  There are mixed feelings about this bill from a number of groups, the 
National Federation of Independent Businesses strongly supports the 
small business liability relief but does not support the expansion of 
Davis Bacon. The National Association of Home Builders and the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce call the bill the first step for addressing the 
brownfields but the Chamber expresses serious concerns over David Bacon 
liability.
  Other groups, like the National Association of Realtors, the National 
Association of Industrial and Office Properties and at least 7 other 
real estate groups strongly support the election. After weighing the 
matter carefully, I believe that this litigation, if implemented 
properly, could go a long way towards protecting small businesses from 
Superfund liability and is a significant first step towards encouraging 
the redevelopment of brownfields.
  For these reasons, I support H.R. 2869 and encourage all of my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this very late early hour, 
however anyone wants to look at it, that we are finally doing some real 
work on the floor of the House having spent the rest of the morning 
engaged in an extended fantasy partisan one-upmanship from the other 
side of the aisle where they jammed through a bill that will not do 
anything to stimulate the economy. It will never become law.
  But this will become law and this is necessary legislation. It should 
be part of a comprehensive Superfund reform. Unfortunately, we have 
been unable to move that legislation through this body. But that said, 
we do have here one key part of Superfund reform, and I just want to 
emphasize one point.
  Legislation will provide needed Federal funding for site assessments 
to determine whether or not those brownfields are, in fact, 
contaminated as well as provide funding for the remediation of 
contaminated property. The technical changes to the Senate bill which I 
referred to earlier in my prepared statement, involved integrating 
these funding operations as an amendments to section 104 of CERCLA, 
change that has been agreed to by all parties involved in negotiations 
on this bill. By amending section 104 of CERCLA we are hoping to 
expedite the implementation of this new program by modeling it after 
one already in operation by the Environmental Protection Agency in 
order that funds authorized by this legislation get to the cities and 
the communities that need them as expeditiously as possible and we move 
ahead with the necessary cleanup.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILLMOR. How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Gillmor) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Duncan) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in strong support of this 
legislation. This much needed bill will help bring confidence to the 
many developer and contractors who fear lawsuits and intense Federal 
oversight of the clean up effort.
  As a lifelong supporter of Davis Bacon, I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Gillmor) for keeping this fundamentally fair provision in the bill.
  The Davis Bacon Act provides working men and women with critical 
worker protections. Davis Bacon is one of few Federal laws that truly 
prevents further erosion of living standards for millions of working 
families and that is so important during these times. At a time of 
economic uncertainty, brownfields legislation will help to stimulate 
development in communities across the country. This bill will clean up 
the environment, maintain the living standards of working families and 
create jobs. I urge our colleagues to vote yes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, first I rise to thank everyone who has 
worked

[[Page H10902]]

so hard on both the brownfields and Superfund business liability relief 
provisions.
  Today we have an opportunity to pass landmark legislation which has a 
very real chance of becoming law. The first portion of this bill deals 
with Superfund small business liability relief. This issue first came 
to my attention when a landfill in Quincy, Illinois was declared a 
Superfund site. Quincy is a small community of 42,000 people located in 
my district of the banks of the Mississippi River.
  The residents of this town have experienced firsthand the unfairness 
of the Superfund law to innocent small businesses punishing them for 
legally disposing their trash. Greg Shiering, a franchisee of two 
McDonalds was asked by the EPA to pay $47,000 for disposing of 
hamburgers and french fries into the town dump. Mike Nobis, part owner 
of a 30-year owned family business, JK Creative Printers was asked to 
pay $42,000 for legally sending trash to the dump in the 70's and 80's. 
One hundred fifty nine small businesses in the community were offered 
settlements with the EPA totaling $3 million.
  The EPA based these payments purely on volume of waste, not on 
whether there was hazardous material in the waste. If the business did 
not settle, they would be open to lawsuits from six large companies. 
Court costs alone could bankrupt some of these small mom and pop shops 
that were targeted.
  Today we have the opportunity to make sure what happened in Quincy 
does not happen in other communities. Any many times in my statements 
in debate of this bill, I just warn my colleagues that this scourge 
would visit their congressional districts some time sooner or later. I 
encouraged them to join me to make sure that this does not happen and I 
am pleased to say that we are almost there. We are almost there. So 
other members will not have to go through this problem of what has 
affected their small businesses.
  I would also like to commend my colleagues' work on brownfields 
reform. This legislation is an important first step in addressing 
problems with the brownfields program. However, I do look forward to 
the opportunity to address this program again. I am really excited and 
concerned about the finality provisions and I think they could be made 
a little bit stronger. We will address that sometime in the future. 
Tighter finality will encourage this business to clean up brownfields 
in order for the program to be as successful as possible.
  I also support the fact that we have not increased but we have just 
certified current law as far as the Davis Bacon provisions. It has been 
successful and it has brought together this great bipartisan agreement 
to move this legislation forward and I think everyone benefits from it.
  At this late hour I am pleased to be here to speak on support of this 
bill in the floor and thank the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and then the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor). I thank them for their 
help. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), I appreciate your 
diligent efforts on this behalf.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to, in closing, just touch very briefly on this 
Davis Bacon question which a few groups have risen. There is no 
expansion of Davis Bacon in this bill.
  Brownfields grants are now done under section 104 of the CERCLA Act. 
Those are covered by Davis Bacon. All this bill does is increase the 
funding from about 100 million to 200 million and Davis Bacon applies 
the same as it did before.
  Increasing funding for a program that is already covered is not an 
expansion. I think most of the Members of this Chamber vote for the 
education bill last week. They voted for all the appropriations bills. 
All those appropriations bills increase funding for various programs to 
which Davis Bacon applies. And we do not consider that an expansion. So 
for those who say it is an expansion in this bill, it is not logical 
but then it is Congress.
  Let me just conclude by saying this is very important legislation, 
reforming brownfields, reforming small bills liability. I very much 
appreciate the broad support of bipartisan support in this Chamber, 
broad support outside of this Chamber this legislation has received and 
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply close by saying I view the main 
intentions of this legislation to be, number one, to make sure that no 
small businesses are unfairly driven out of existence by unintended and 
unfair liability under Superfund. And, secondly, and very importantly, 
to see that more brownfields sites across this Nation are cleaned up 
and put back into productive use in this country. I simply want to say 
that I commend all of the Members and the staff that were involved in 
bringing this very important legislation to the floor of this House.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate that H.R. 
2869 is a first step towards addressing the clean up of brownfields, it 
is unfortunate that this bill does not provide the adequate incentives 
and protection to those willing to take the risk associated with 
brownfields remediation. Specifically, this bill does not address the 
entire universe of brownfields sites in this country. H.R. 2869 only 
includes a prospective purchaser liability exemption for sites 
contaminated with a ``hazardous substance'' as defined under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA). Petroleum is not considered a hazardous substance under 
CERCLA and is regulated specifically under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA) statute.
  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 
approximately one half of the 500,000 brownfields sites in this country 
are contaminated with petroleum. By excluding RCRA liability protection 
for petroleum sites, I am concerned that half of the sites in the 
country may remain contaminated, undeveloped and devoid of any 
productive use. Without the prospective purchaser liability protections 
for petroleum sites, developers will likely avoid remediating these 
sites. I am disappointed that we have not addressed this issue in this 
pending legislation and I encourage this House to address this issue as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2869, the Small 
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. This 
important bipartisan, bicameral brownfields redevelopment legislation, 
a long time in coming, will help significantly in the redevelopment of 
many abandoned and long-forgotten properties dotting our nation's city 
and community centers.
  Mr. Speaker, back in the early 1990's, several members of the 
Democratic caucus began talking about the problems faced in many of our 
urban centers. Many of our members had spoken with their mayors and 
other interested constituents about the great number of former 
commercial and industrial sites left underutilized or abandoned--with 
no real prospects of redevelopment. These ``brownfields'', which once 
housed the machinery and the manpower that helped this country grow 
throughout the last century, were vacant--generating little tax revenue 
for the cities, and serving as breeding grounds for crime, vandalism, 
and a poor quality-of-life for neighboring communities. In 1992, 
members of the Democratic caucus proposed the idea of using the power 
of the Federal government to help rejuvenate these brownfields 
properties--cleaning up the legacy of the industrial age, and returning 
these forgotten properties to productive use. Unfortunately, these 
efforts were blocked for a variety of reasons--both substantive and 
political. Now, almost a decade later, I am pleased that we finally 
have reached agreement on a package that will achieve those original 
goals.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not, in my opinion, the best bill that we could 
offer. In fact, few here today can say that they support everything in 
this legislation. This bill represents a compromise in the constructive 
sense of that word--almost exactly the same as one that achieved a vote 
of 99-0 in the other body, and one that will proceed expeditiously to 
the President's desk for his signature.
  Very briefly, this legislation is divided into two titles. The first 
title contains the text of the Small Business Liability Protection Act 
that passed the House back in May by a vote of 419-0. This bipartisan 
legislation seeks to protect small businesses from being sued by 
overzealous polluters at Superfund sites, as well as protects 
homeowners and charitable organizations that simply put out the trash.
  The second title contains, almost verbatim, the text of S. 350, the 
Senate brownfields legislation that passed the other body last April.

[[Page H10903]]

This proposal carves out limited Superfund liability exemptions for 
innocent landowners, prospective purchasers of contaminated properties, 
and contiguous property owners--the individuals who should never be 
subject to Superfund liability for these properties. The bill also 
preserves the vital federal safety net that allows the Environmental 
Protection Agency to require additional cleanup of properties when 
there is a threat to human health or the environment following a 
cleanup under a state program. This provision will ensure that local 
residents will be protected should a cleanup plan fail to protect human 
health or the environment.
  Finally, this legislation will provide much needed funding for 
brownfields site assessment and cleanup to move brownfields properties 
into productive reuse as quickly as possible. The bill will make 
Federal monies available for brownfields site assessment and 
remediation by amending section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)--the only change in 
legislative text from S. 350. By placing the legislative funding 
authority directly in section 104 of CERCLA, this legislation aims to 
take advantage of Environmental Protection Agency's experiences gained 
through its current brownfields program, and attempts to build upon 
these successes through explicit legislative brownfields authority, 
increased authorizations, and greater flexibility in the case of 
Federal dollars. Accordingly, we expect EPA to closely model its 
implementation of this legislation on the Agency's existing brownfields 
program, and to get these desperately needed funds out the door and 
directly to the cities and communities as soon as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am pleased to support this 
important brownfields revitalization legislation. While it has been a 
long time coming, I believe that this legislation will greatly assist 
in the redevelopment of brownfields properties that have troubled our 
nation for too long. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, although H.R. 2869 
represents a step forward in addressing brownfields reform, I am 
concerned that the legislation before us does not encourage the clean 
up and redevelopment of all brownfields sites. Specifically, although 
H.R. 2869 includes prospective purchaser federal liability protection 
for ``hazardous substances'' defined under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), it 
does not include prospective purchaser liability exemption for 
petroleum based contaminants under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA). This is a critical issue that is being overlooked 
in this legislation.
  It is my understanding that the EPA has estimated that there are 
approximately 200,000 petroleum-based brownfields sites in this nation. 
If Congress is to address this important environmental issue, it is 
critical that we pass meaningful reform. I am disappointed that we have 
chosen not to do so with this legislation. I have to imagine that each 
one of us has an abandoned gas station in our district that could be 
cleaned up and redeveloped were it not for liability uncertainty. The 
reality is that without prospective purchaser liability protections for 
petroleum sites, developers--who did not cause the contamination--will 
not be willing to take the risk of cleaning up these sites and 
legislation will fail to meet its goal. I encourage the House to 
address this oversight as soon as possible.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, While I am pleased that Congress has chosen 
to address the important issue of brownfields reform, I am concerned 
that the House has not chosen to fully address liability protection for 
all brownfields sites.
  While H.R. 2869 is a first step in addressing brownfields reform, the 
legislation lacks a critical component that will prevent the clean up 
and redevelopment of brownfields on a meaningful scale. H.R. 2869 does 
not include federal liability protections for the clean up of 
petroleum-contaminated sites under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act.
  By not addressing petroleum liability, half of the brownfields sites 
in this country have the potential to remain undeveloped under H.R. 
2869. EPA has estimated that 200,000 of the 500,000 brownfields sites 
in the country are petroleum based. It is probably safe to say that 
almost every congressional district has an abandoned gas station that 
could be remediated and redeveloped. However, developers will not 
likely tackle these projects.
  Redevelopment of brownfields presents an opportunity to combine Smart 
Growth principals with economic development. many brownfields, 
especially petroleum-based sites, are located in urban areas, like my 
district, or close-in suburbs where whole communities stand to be 
revitalized through new building and the economic activity it will 
stimulate. Further, petroleum-contaminated sites are obvious targets 
for redevelopment because of the well-known and cost-effective 
remediation technologies currently available for petroleum 
contamination.
  Without liability protections developers will not be willing to take 
the risk of cleaning up these sites and legislation will fail to meet 
its goal. Congress needs to address liability protections for 
petroleum-based sites if we are to achieve meaningful, effective 
brownfields reform.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2869, a 
comprehensive brownfields and targeted Superfund small business 
liability relief bill. This is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise that 
will help protect the environment, restore brownfields, revitalize 
local economies, and return a little bit of basic fairness to 
Superfund's liability regime. Unfortunately, the bill does not include 
a reauthorization of Superfund's corporate environmental income tax and 
more comprehensive reform of the Superfund statute; and so my 
enthusiasm today is tempered by feelings of ``missed opportunities'' 
and growing concerns about the future of the Superfund Program.
  Nonetheless, today's bill is a feat in itself and I want to thank and 
congratulate all of those who helped over the years and recent months. 
The nation's mayors and their constituencies see the tremendous 
opportunities for economic development and environmental protection 
embodied in brownfields revitalization and they are rallying behind 
this legislation, just as they did when they began their initiative to 
``recycle America's land.'' The leadership of the House and Senate, the 
Chairs and ranking members of the authorizing committees and 
subcommittees, and the administration should all be commended for 
making today's action possible. Special thanks should go to the 
committee staff, such as Susan Bodine and Jim Barnette, who have 
endured the torturous legislative process for years.
  It has taken far too long to get to this point. I myself have quite a 
few ``scars'' from the many battles that began in the early 90's and 
culminated in the 105th and 106th Congresses, when I chaired the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Water 
Resources and Environment. We moved my comprehensive bill (H.R. 1300) 
through the committee on an unprecedented, bipartisan vote of 69 to 2. 
It brought people together because it provided broad-based reform, 
brownfields revitalization, and called for a responsible 
reauthorization of Superfund taxes to help maintain the ``polluter 
pays'' principle.
  I continue to believe such an approach is the right one and that is 
why I reintroduced the bill as H.R. 324. However, given the 
complications of moving a more comprehensive bill, I support moving 
forward today with this more targeted compromise, as long as we also 
continue to work on other important components of reforming and 
financing Superfund. H.R. 2869 should be viewed as the first of several 
steps in securing the fairness, effectiveness, and funding for 
improving the Nation's approach to hazardous and abandoned waste sites.

  Title I of H.R. 2869 responds to the need for Superfund liability 
reform relating to small businesses. It includes the text of the House-
passed bill, H.R. 1831. It provides a ``de-micromis'' exemption for 
those who were contributors of truly tiny amounts of waste. It also 
exempts those who contributed nonhazardous garbage (``municipal solid 
waste''). Finally, it encourages faster and fairer settlements through 
``ability to pay'' procedures.
  Mr. Speaker, the inequities and inefficiencies of the current 
liability regime continue. One recent example, involving a local 
newspaper in my district, illustrates the need for limited exemptions 
and fair share allocations of responsibility. The Rome Sentinel, which 
disposed of waste at a landfill many decades ago, was notified that it 
was a potentially responsibility party. Under the current strict, 
joint, and several liability system, there are not many incentives for 
a fair and efficient allocation process. Instead, the Government may 
focus on ``deep pockets'' who then sue everyone else, large and small, 
culpable and not-so-culpable, to recover their costs. Even though the 
newspaper may have contributed only minor amounts of waste (and did so 
lawfully at the time of the disposal), it faced the prospects of being 
dragged into a tremendously costly and protracted legal battle in third 
party lawsuits.
  H.R. 2869 will make some modest improvements to the current liability 
system. More comprehensive reform is needed, however.
  Title II includes brownfields legislation that passed the Senate 
earlier this year by a vote of 99 to 0. It is not perfect legislation, 
but it is legislation we can and should support. Like the brownfields 
provisions from my bill last Congress (H.R. 1300), it not only removes 
barriers to cleanup and redevelopment but it retains a ``safety net'' 
for environmental protection and governmental enforcement. It also 
allows for the application of Davis-Bacon labor protections.
  Where should we go from here? Congress and the administration should 
honor the polluter pays principle. It should heed the findings

[[Page H10904]]

and conclusions of the July 2001 report by Resources for the Future, 
``Superfund's Future, What Will it Cost,'' that a ``ramp-down'' of the 
Superfund program is not imminent and that the total estimated cost to 
EPA of implementing the Superfund program from FY 2000 through FY 2009 
ranges from $14 billion to $16.4 billion.
  Therefore, to meet the goals of the cleanup program, to remain true 
to the polluter pays principle, and to finance the needed liability 
reforms, Congress should reauthorize the corporate environmental income 
tax, which expired on December 31, 1995. This broad-based tax of .12% 
of all corporate income above $2 million could generate needed funds in 
a fair and responsible manner. Contrary to what some might believe, the 
oil industry would not pay a disproportionate amount. For example, in 
1995 oil companies paid $37.7 million in corporate environmental income 
taxes, only 5.3 percent of the total amount collected in that year.

  In response to my request, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated 
on September 24, 2001 that a re-imposed corporate environmental income 
tax would generate over $3 billion over a 5-year period. This is 
exactly the type of revenue needed for a program that continues to 
deliver public health, environmental, and economic development 
benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not only to support passage of H.R. 
2869 today but to work towards enactment of broader Superfund reform, 
including reauthorization of the expired corporate environmental income 
tax.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
concern about legislation that the House passed by voice vote early 
this morning H.R. 2869, the ``Small Business Liability Relief and 
Brownfields Revitalization Act.''
  Brownfields redevelopment effectively marries the principles of 
economic development and environmental protection by slowing the 
developing of open space by presenting property owners and developers 
with access to brownfields sites located in desirable locations, with 
existing infrastructure and affordable pricing. While I am a strong 
supporters and advocate of brownfields clean up, I am dishearten that 
H.R. 2869 did not go further to address the entire brownfields problem 
in this country.
  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 
approximately one half of the 450,000 brownfields sites in this country 
are contaminated with some type of petroleum pollution. Unfortunately, 
H.R. 2869 ignored petroleum-contaminated sites by only including a 
liability exemption for brownfields sites contaminated with a 
``hazardous substance'' as defined under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). 
Petroleum contamination, which is not considered a ``hazardous 
substance'' under CERCLA, is regulated under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA). While H.R. 2869 does include federal grant 
money for a very specific set of petroleum contaminated sites, I fear 
that these grants alone will not be an incentive to spur the clean up 
of petroleum brownfields sites. Without a RCRA liability exemption for 
petroleum contaminated sites, only half of the brownfields sites in 
this country have the potential to be redeveloped.
  It is my sincere hope that H.R. 2869 only represents a beginning of 
our intent to address brownfields redevelopment. I hope this Congress 
will address liability protection for petroleum-contaminated 
brownfields sites next year so we can truly address the entire 
brownfields problem in this country. I look forward to working with the 
leadership and the committees to make comprehensive brownfields 
redevelopment a reality.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2869. 
This bill combines the brownfields provisions of S. 350 that 
unanimously passed the Senate on April 25, 2001, and the small business 
liability protection provisions of H.R. 1831 that unanimously passed 
the House on May 22, 2001. This bill is a good piece of legislation. It 
deserves the support of all members.
  In the past two Congresses, members on this side of the aisle have 
put forward, and strongly supported, stand-alone brownfields 
legislation and targeted relief for small business. Those policies are 
contained in this bill. The passage of this legislation will help 
revitalize and redevelop our communities. Using the provisions of this 
bill, local governments will be able to obtain increased funding and 
remove urban eyesores and create new jobs. At the same time, risks to 
the public health from petroleum and hazardous substances contamination 
will also be addressed at these lesser-contaminated brownfield sites.
  In the Detroit metropolitan area alone, which has been home to our 
country's industrial strength for over 100 years, brownfields cover 
tens of thousands of acres of lands once occupied by mighty 
manufacturing facilities and thriving communities. Brownfields 
development is occurring in Michigan communities like Taylor and 
Monroe, as local governments, developers, and citizens are finding 
creative ways to rebuild our communities.
  This bill maintains the policies of EPA's current and very successful 
brownfields program. Adoption of this brownfields legislation is a top 
priority for our Nation's mayors, who have testified that it meets all 
of their fundamental needs.
  I congratulate Subcommittee Chairman Gillmor, Ranking Member Pallone, 
and our former Ranking Member from New York, Mr. Towns, for their hard 
work over several years on this important legislation.
  I strongly urge adoption of H.R. 2869 as amended.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 2869, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________