YellowSub1962
04-27-2001, 10:15 AM
<font color="yellow">Boxer is at it again..Only this time she's got some help <IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0"></font c>
Congressional Record
4/25/01
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of the Senator from Rhode Island for a moment, I thank the Senator so much for his leadership on this issue. It has meant so much to us to have it and that of Senator Smith. Senator Reid and I are most grateful. I think we have a team that is very good for the environment. When we are together, it is a real winner because we can reach out to colleagues on both sides of the aisle from the entire spectrum. So I just want to say thank you.
I say to the Senator, as much as I miss your father, whom I adored, I must say that it is wonderful to have you here and following in his ``green'' footsteps.
Congressional Record
4/25/01
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am here to say that this bill, S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act, is a tremendously important issue for this country and for my constituents.
I truly believe if we look around the country, it is an extremely important issue to everyone. Why? Because we have so many acres of land around the country that have been contaminated with low-level hazardous waste. They do not fit the definition of a Superfund site, but they are expensive to clean up, and local communities really do need our help.
I want to show you an example of a successful brownfields restoration. This photograph is of a site in Emeryville, CA, that hosted a steel manufacturing plant for over 100 years. In the early 1990s, it was shut down, the buildings were demolished, and the area was left empty and desolate. You can see from the photograph what a horrible eyesore it was to the community. And, by the way, this site is along a major freeway, so everyone saw it. It gave the impression of a community that was simply going downhill.
The next picture I will show you is what happened when the State got together with the IKEA company and worked together to clean up the site.
In 1997, the State came to this agreement with the original owners of the site and with IKEA to restore and redevelop the area. Now the site holds 280,000 square feet of commercial retail space. The project has created 300 new, permanent jobs for the community. Now the site generates roughly $70 million in annual sales.
There are not too many things in this Chamber that we can do that has such clear-cut benefit. Clean up the environment and you make an area much nicer to look at. And then you can develop it and bring jobs to the site.
So if anyone questions the need for this brownfields legislation, I would welcome them to, again, look at these before-and-after pictures. Here it is after; here it is before. It is a pretty clear picture.
I am so proud of the bipartisan cooperation that occurred in getting the bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee. The broad support, from a variety of diverse interests, as well as the cosponsorship of over 60 Senators, is a good indication that the time has come to pass this brownfields legislation.
I understand that even our colleagues who have problems with the bill are now supporting it. I think this is a tribute to them for being open minded about it, and a tribute to our chairman, Chairman Smith, and our ranking member, Harry Reid, I80for working with our colleagues.
I want to talk a little bit about the brownfields in my home State of California, the largest State in the Union, with 34 million people. The economy of my State would be considered the sixth largest economy in the world. So it seems to me that whenever there are problems in the country, of course, we have more of those problems in my State. And when good things are happening, we have more of the good things.
This is one of the problems. So let's talk about it. There are estimated to be hundreds, if not thousands, of brownfield sites in California. We have heard nationwide estimates of 400,000 to 600,000 brownfield sites. We have thousands of sites in California because some industries have left the State with a dangerous legacy of contamination.
This bill will serve as a catalyst for cleanup because it provides funding for grants and revolving loan funds to assist our States, our local communities, and our tribal governments to do the assessments first. In other words, what is the problem? What is going on? What is it going to cost to clean it up? And how is the best way to clean it up?
This bill fills a gap. As I said before, Superfund covers our Nation's most hazardous sites. We really did not have a way to approach the less hazardous sites.
I want to talk about how happy I am that this bill includes my proposal to protect children. Under S. 350, funding will be prioritized for brownfields that disproportionately impact the health of children, pregnant women, or other vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. This is very important.
Why do I say that? Because children are not small adults. I have said this often. I am a small adult. But children are not small adults. They are more sensitive than adults to the health threats posed by hazardous waste, even the kinds we call low level. Why? Because their bodies are changing, and they are developing. Healthy adults can tolerate higher levels of pollutants than children.
In recognition of this, the bill ensures that children, and others who are particularly vulnerable, will be given special priority for funding under this bill. So we are going to look at these sites. If it is a site where children play, where children go, where the elderly go, where people who are vulnerable go, those sites will be priority sites.
The bill also gives priority to cleanups in low-income and minority communities because, unfortunately, we have seen a lot of the environmental injustice in this country where brownfield sites are disproportionately located in low-income and minority communities, certainly in places such as Oakland, Los Angeles, and Sacramento.
So we have a situation where the brownfields are most prevalent in communities that are least able to deal with them. And the more brownfield sites that are in a community, the lower the chance that the community can improve its economic plight. It is a horrible cycle of poverty.
Let's take this site shown in the photograph. This site was in a very low-income community, and no one had the resources. And a company such as IKEA, who eventually came to this site, did not want to go to this site because there was no one to go to the store. You would have a situation where the site could sit vacant for years and years and years. It contributes to the cycle. You can never get out of the cycle.
So by saying this kind of a situation in a low-income community would be a priority, we will give an economic stimulus to those communities. I am very pleased about that.
The last issue that I believe very strongly about is the issue of sites that were contaminated because there was illegal manufacturing of a controlled substance there. This may sound very odd. So let me explain what I mean.
In California, we have a terrible problem from the production of methamphetamine. It turns out that this terribly dangerous drug is not only illegal, not only does it destroy people_destroy people_but the byproduct of methamphetamine production is a toxic stew of lye, hydriodic acid, and red phosphorus. These elements threaten the groundwater and agricultural lands of the Central Valley and elsewhere in California where these secret methamphetamine labs are sited.
I show you a picture of one abandoned lab where you can see these containers with all the chemicals that were left on the site.
This is another picture of an abandoned meth site. We can see what it looks like, what a disaster it is when these criminals leave and then suddenly the owners of the land who had no idea this was happening are left with this horrible contamination. We were able to include relief for these farmers. I will talk about that in a minute.
I will take a moment to talk more about these methamphetamine labs. In California alone, there were 277 secret drug labs that were raided in 1990. In 1998, there were over 1,000 of these clandestine drug labs. The State is doing its best to address the problem as well as the larger brownfields problem. They are trying to do it, but it is very hard to do it alone. We have to have everyone helping. This bill will provide invaluable assistance for the cleanup of meth sites and other brownfields, which is another reason I am such a strong supporter of the legislation.
This bill includes liability relief for innocent parties. These innocent parties are people who are interested in cleaning up the brownfield site, but they are afraid to get involved because they may become liable for somebody else's mess. Our bill makes it clear that innocent parties will not be held liable under Superfund for the work they do on a brownfield site. This provision alone should help reduce the fear of developers and real estate interests, and it should lead to more cleanups. This provision is certainly a strong reason that a variety of business and real estate interests are strong supporters of the bill. They want to come in; they want to clean up the sites; but they don't want to now become held liable for past problems and then be hauled into court on a Superfund case.
However, I do believe very strongly that the polluter must pay. Our bill does not protect people who are responsible for cleanup under Superfund or any other statute. If you make a mess, if you despoil the environment, you still will be held responsible for cleaning it up. We maintain ``the polluter pays'' principle that underpins many of our hazardous waste statutes.
The committee considered and rejected efforts to waive the application of other statutes, such as RCRA and TSCA, to these brownfield sites. It was too complicated to try to amend other statutes, and I appreciate the fact that our foursome stuck together during these amendments because it would have opened up a can of worms. What we did was we kept this narrow. We kept it on the issue of brownfields. We kept out extraneous issues. Again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation on that.
Our bill encourages States to take the lead on brownfield sites. It does set some limitations on EPA's enforcement authority under Superfund for sites covered by this bill. We believe this is important in gaining strong support. I am comfortable with this feature because there are a number of safeguards that ensure that a secure Federal safety net remains. These safeguards are an essential part of the compromise that is the heart of the bill. They ensure that EPA can apply its full Superfund enforcement authority under a variety of circumstances.
Most important to me_and it was a tough debate that we had_was the guarantee that EPA could intervene if a site threatens to cause immediate and substantial endangerment to the public's health or welfare or to the environment. I believe this language guarantees that if a State's oversight of a cleanup fails to protect our citizens or our environment, the Federal Government can intervene. We are clear that we want the State to be responsible, but if there is a problem which will result in an immediate threat to people's health, the EPA can enter. It was a careful balance that went into crafting that provision as well as the rest of the bill.
Together I believe we have produced a sensible and balanced bill that will help encourage the recycling of brownfield sites that now sit unused around the Nation.
In closing, one more time I will show our success story that happened in Emeryville. First, let's show the before picture again. This is what we are talking about, sites that look like this, sites that are harmful. People don't want to go on them. People are afraid of them. There is no economic development in the middle of our urban areas. Then when we work together, we can bring business interests to the site and we start to see people use the site again. The site will bring in revenues.
I thank my colleagues for all their hard work, and I yield the floor.
Congressional Record
4/25/01
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I compliment the efforts of Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee, and Boxer. They have done a great job in moving this legislation forward.
I was very disappointed that this bill was not enacted last year, it represents a lot of hard work and compromise. I think this bill is a win-win for the environment, for local communities and for local economies. More hazardous waste sites will be cleaned up, and we'll have more parks and open space, more economic redevelopment, and more jobs. This bill will make cleaning up polluted sites easier by reducing the many legal and regulatory barriers to brownfields redevelopment while providing much needed cleanup funds.
The brownfields bill is important for rural areas, not just big cities. In Montana, we have hundreds of sites that have been polluted by mining, timber processing, railroad work, and other industrial activities that were part of our economic development.
I worked hard on a very similar bill last year, together with many of my colleagues. Last year, it was the first bipartisan brownfields bill ever introduced in the Senate. I was thrilled to cosponsor the bill again this year, under the leadership of Senator Smith and Senator Reid. This bill has been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including the National Association of Realtors, the Conference of Mayors, and the Trust for Public Lands. It represents a hard-won, delicately balanced compromise.
Superfund critics have long argued that the possibility that EPA could second-guess state-approved cleanups has discouraged brownfields remediation. At the same time, I and others have argued that we need to preserve the federal government's ability to use Superfund authorities to deal with dangerous situations at sites cleaned up under state programs in the rare case in which the cleanup is inadequate and there is a threat to human health or the environment.
The tension between these two views has been one of the major obstacles to moving brownfields legislation in the past. This bill forges a new compromise on this issue, and it is a good compromise. Both sides came to the table and made some important concessions. The bill is not perfect, it is not everything I wanted. It is not everything some of my colleagues across the aisle wanted, either. But, as I have often said, let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And this is a good bill that will do good things for the environment, for communities, for businesses and for the Nation. These sites need to be cleaned up, for the health and well-being of our citizens and our environment, and doing nothing is no longer an option.
Hopefully, two other bills will come to the floor that would expand the abilities of the Economic Development Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help local communities physically develop and restore brownfields sites to productive use. Taken together, S. 350 and these two bills would make up a complete brownfields redevelopment package. They will provide critical economic and technical assistance to communities during all stages of brownfields redevelopment_from an initial site assessment to putting the finishing touches on a new apartment building or city park.
I am happy to hear that the administration has expressed its support for S. 350. The brownfields bill is an outstanding example of a bipartisan effort to help communities across the nation. I hope we can all work together to make sure it is signed into law this year.
Congressional Record
4/25/01
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this important legislation to provide States and local communities with the tools and the resources they need to clean up and reuse polluted industrial properties, turning them from eyesores into opportunities and leveraging literally billions of dollars in economic benefits.
The legislation we are voting on today, S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, represents the ultimate form of recycling. It is the recycling of one of our most precious and scarce natural resources; namely, our land. Our environmental resources, as our financial resources, are not limitless. The cleanup and reuse of brownfield sites allows businesses and developers to use existing infrastructure so we can reduce sprawl and preserve our precious green space and farmland and, at the same time, it provides an opportunity to energize local economies and create new jobs.
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, an act which, as the President knows so well, enjoys broad bipartisan support of a majority of the Senate, as well as of the administration, a diversity of State and local government organizations, business interests, and environmental advocacy groups.
This bill, S. 350, is an important step in building on the proven success of existing brownfields efforts. The bill authorizes the establishment of a flexible program to provide grants and loans to State, tribal, and local governments and nonprofit organizations to assess, safely clean up, and reuse brownfields. It includes important provisions that promote assistance for small, low-income communities, as well as supporting efforts to create or preserve open space and furthering participation by the public in cleanup decisions.
The bill provides appropriate liability relief for innocent parties who want to clean up and reuse brownfield sites, while maintaining the necessary Federal safety net to address serious cleanup issues.
Last week, I was delighted to learn that the EPA was making grants for additional brownfields funding for Utica, NY. I remember the first time I visited downtown Utica and saw all of the old mill and factory buildings, which already were tied in with existing utilities, providing an excellent opportunity for remediation that could be then followed by immediate redevelopment, only to be told because they were built on old industrial sites, because the manufacturing processes that occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries involved dangerous chemicals and other contaminants, these brownfield sites in the middle of downtown Utica were too expensive for private developers and the local community to clean up. I am delighted that Utica and other such places around New York, including Albany and Chautauqua Counties and a village of Haverstram in Rockland County also received brownfields funding.
We have seen the benefits of brownfields cleanup and revitalization throughout New York, from Buffalo to Glen Cove, and all the places in between. I stood on the shore at Glen Cove, one of the most beautiful communities on the north shore of Long Island, and could see the effects of the cleanup of brownfields that are going to turn what had been a contaminated I80waste area into a place that can be part of waterfront redevelopment.
To date, over 20 communities across New York have received assistance through EPA's existing brownfields program. It is my hope and belief that there will be many more when we finish this legislation, which will more than double the resources currently available for brownfields cleanup across our country.
This bill strikes a delicate balance. There are compromises and tradeoffs. I appreciate the hard work of the committee in a bipartisan fashion to move this legislation forward. I take this opportunity to thank the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I am honored to serve, particularly our chairman, Senator Smith, and our ranking member, Senator Reid, and the two Senators who pushed this legislation forward because of their respective chairing and ranking positions on a subcommittee; namely, Senators Chafee and Boxer. I also thank the staffs, including my staff, the committee staff, and the individual staffs of the Senators who worked so quickly and diligently to move this legislation to the floor today.
The managers' amendment includes a number of significant provisions. Again, I applaud and thank everyone who was part of this process. I am grateful; two of the managers' amendments I personally sponsored will be part of this legislation. One provision will help focus the delivery of brownfields assistance to communities that experience a higher than normal incidence of diseases such as cancer, asthma, or birth defects.
Two weeks ago, I was very fortunate and honored to go with my friend, the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid, to Fallon, NV, where we held a hearing on a cancer cluster. It is a lovely community, 50, 60 miles from Reno. It is a small community, maybe 30,000 people at most, in a sparsely populated county. They have had 12 cases of leukemia among children in the last 2 years. Clearly, it is a cancer cluster. We don't know what is causing it. Many believe, and much of the testimony we heard certainly suggests, this rate of cancer in this kind of a cluster could be linked with exposure to hazardous substances.
The important provision we have added to the bill will offer assistance to communities already burdened with severe health programs, to help them clean up the polluted sites that may contribute to these problems. We will have to do a lot more, and I will be working with Senator Reid under his leadership to think about what else we can do to address environmental health issues.
We certainly have more than our share in New York. I am hoping that in the future we will have a hearing in New York, perhaps on Long Island, to talk about the cancer clusters. We have asthma clusters; we have diabetes clusters. We need to figure out what we are doing or what we could stop doing or how we can clean up whatever might be associated.
Under S. 350, States that receive brownfields funding must survey and inventory sites in the State. I was concerned there might be sites that would be overlooked in communities that are small or sparsely populated such as Fallon, or low-income or minority such as those in New York City.
I am pleased that with this provision in the managers' amendment we will be able to include public participation so individuals can request a nearby brownfield site be assessed under a State program. States would maintain discretion and flexibility to set up this process however they best see fit, but concerned citizens would not be shut out of the process. They could participate and ask their particular brownfield site be given some attention and perhaps even expedited cleanup because of the impact on their local community.
In every corner of our country there are abandoned, blighted areas that used to be the engines of the industrial economy or served in our national defense. We were privileged to hear testimony from the admiral who runs the naval airbase that trains the top gun pilots outside of Fallon. They use a lot of jet fuel. They have to occasionally burn it. They sometimes have to drop it in their flight. They were very willing to come forward and talk about what the defense industry can do to help in this area.
Many of the places suffering from brownfields were in the forefront of creating the strong economy and the strong national defense system we enjoy today. I think we have to pay attention to the needs of these communities.
I thank all who have made it possible for us to consider this bill today. I urge my colleagues to join in passing this important piece of environmental and economic and health care legislation. I hope our colleagues in the House will work to move their own brownfields bill so we can finally get about the business of revitalizing these sites so they can realize their economic potential and preserve our country's beautiful, open spaces, and revitalize our downtown areas.
I yield the floor.
Congressional Record
4/25/01
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, The managers' amendment states that consultation with the State shall not limit the ability of the Administrator in making a determination, as the result of new information, that contamination or conditions at a facility present a threat requiring further remediation to protect public health or welfare or the environment. Consultation with the State is important and is addressed in this section and other portions of the bill. It is not intended, however, to be an open-ended process. Consultation should not delay or prohibit the Administrator's ability to determine that a site presents a threat that requires further remediation.
[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Yellowsub1962 ]
Congressional Record
4/25/01
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of the Senator from Rhode Island for a moment, I thank the Senator so much for his leadership on this issue. It has meant so much to us to have it and that of Senator Smith. Senator Reid and I are most grateful. I think we have a team that is very good for the environment. When we are together, it is a real winner because we can reach out to colleagues on both sides of the aisle from the entire spectrum. So I just want to say thank you.
I say to the Senator, as much as I miss your father, whom I adored, I must say that it is wonderful to have you here and following in his ``green'' footsteps.
Congressional Record
4/25/01
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am here to say that this bill, S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act, is a tremendously important issue for this country and for my constituents.
I truly believe if we look around the country, it is an extremely important issue to everyone. Why? Because we have so many acres of land around the country that have been contaminated with low-level hazardous waste. They do not fit the definition of a Superfund site, but they are expensive to clean up, and local communities really do need our help.
I want to show you an example of a successful brownfields restoration. This photograph is of a site in Emeryville, CA, that hosted a steel manufacturing plant for over 100 years. In the early 1990s, it was shut down, the buildings were demolished, and the area was left empty and desolate. You can see from the photograph what a horrible eyesore it was to the community. And, by the way, this site is along a major freeway, so everyone saw it. It gave the impression of a community that was simply going downhill.
The next picture I will show you is what happened when the State got together with the IKEA company and worked together to clean up the site.
In 1997, the State came to this agreement with the original owners of the site and with IKEA to restore and redevelop the area. Now the site holds 280,000 square feet of commercial retail space. The project has created 300 new, permanent jobs for the community. Now the site generates roughly $70 million in annual sales.
There are not too many things in this Chamber that we can do that has such clear-cut benefit. Clean up the environment and you make an area much nicer to look at. And then you can develop it and bring jobs to the site.
So if anyone questions the need for this brownfields legislation, I would welcome them to, again, look at these before-and-after pictures. Here it is after; here it is before. It is a pretty clear picture.
I am so proud of the bipartisan cooperation that occurred in getting the bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee. The broad support, from a variety of diverse interests, as well as the cosponsorship of over 60 Senators, is a good indication that the time has come to pass this brownfields legislation.
I understand that even our colleagues who have problems with the bill are now supporting it. I think this is a tribute to them for being open minded about it, and a tribute to our chairman, Chairman Smith, and our ranking member, Harry Reid, I80for working with our colleagues.
I want to talk a little bit about the brownfields in my home State of California, the largest State in the Union, with 34 million people. The economy of my State would be considered the sixth largest economy in the world. So it seems to me that whenever there are problems in the country, of course, we have more of those problems in my State. And when good things are happening, we have more of the good things.
This is one of the problems. So let's talk about it. There are estimated to be hundreds, if not thousands, of brownfield sites in California. We have heard nationwide estimates of 400,000 to 600,000 brownfield sites. We have thousands of sites in California because some industries have left the State with a dangerous legacy of contamination.
This bill will serve as a catalyst for cleanup because it provides funding for grants and revolving loan funds to assist our States, our local communities, and our tribal governments to do the assessments first. In other words, what is the problem? What is going on? What is it going to cost to clean it up? And how is the best way to clean it up?
This bill fills a gap. As I said before, Superfund covers our Nation's most hazardous sites. We really did not have a way to approach the less hazardous sites.
I want to talk about how happy I am that this bill includes my proposal to protect children. Under S. 350, funding will be prioritized for brownfields that disproportionately impact the health of children, pregnant women, or other vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. This is very important.
Why do I say that? Because children are not small adults. I have said this often. I am a small adult. But children are not small adults. They are more sensitive than adults to the health threats posed by hazardous waste, even the kinds we call low level. Why? Because their bodies are changing, and they are developing. Healthy adults can tolerate higher levels of pollutants than children.
In recognition of this, the bill ensures that children, and others who are particularly vulnerable, will be given special priority for funding under this bill. So we are going to look at these sites. If it is a site where children play, where children go, where the elderly go, where people who are vulnerable go, those sites will be priority sites.
The bill also gives priority to cleanups in low-income and minority communities because, unfortunately, we have seen a lot of the environmental injustice in this country where brownfield sites are disproportionately located in low-income and minority communities, certainly in places such as Oakland, Los Angeles, and Sacramento.
So we have a situation where the brownfields are most prevalent in communities that are least able to deal with them. And the more brownfield sites that are in a community, the lower the chance that the community can improve its economic plight. It is a horrible cycle of poverty.
Let's take this site shown in the photograph. This site was in a very low-income community, and no one had the resources. And a company such as IKEA, who eventually came to this site, did not want to go to this site because there was no one to go to the store. You would have a situation where the site could sit vacant for years and years and years. It contributes to the cycle. You can never get out of the cycle.
So by saying this kind of a situation in a low-income community would be a priority, we will give an economic stimulus to those communities. I am very pleased about that.
The last issue that I believe very strongly about is the issue of sites that were contaminated because there was illegal manufacturing of a controlled substance there. This may sound very odd. So let me explain what I mean.
In California, we have a terrible problem from the production of methamphetamine. It turns out that this terribly dangerous drug is not only illegal, not only does it destroy people_destroy people_but the byproduct of methamphetamine production is a toxic stew of lye, hydriodic acid, and red phosphorus. These elements threaten the groundwater and agricultural lands of the Central Valley and elsewhere in California where these secret methamphetamine labs are sited.
I show you a picture of one abandoned lab where you can see these containers with all the chemicals that were left on the site.
This is another picture of an abandoned meth site. We can see what it looks like, what a disaster it is when these criminals leave and then suddenly the owners of the land who had no idea this was happening are left with this horrible contamination. We were able to include relief for these farmers. I will talk about that in a minute.
I will take a moment to talk more about these methamphetamine labs. In California alone, there were 277 secret drug labs that were raided in 1990. In 1998, there were over 1,000 of these clandestine drug labs. The State is doing its best to address the problem as well as the larger brownfields problem. They are trying to do it, but it is very hard to do it alone. We have to have everyone helping. This bill will provide invaluable assistance for the cleanup of meth sites and other brownfields, which is another reason I am such a strong supporter of the legislation.
This bill includes liability relief for innocent parties. These innocent parties are people who are interested in cleaning up the brownfield site, but they are afraid to get involved because they may become liable for somebody else's mess. Our bill makes it clear that innocent parties will not be held liable under Superfund for the work they do on a brownfield site. This provision alone should help reduce the fear of developers and real estate interests, and it should lead to more cleanups. This provision is certainly a strong reason that a variety of business and real estate interests are strong supporters of the bill. They want to come in; they want to clean up the sites; but they don't want to now become held liable for past problems and then be hauled into court on a Superfund case.
However, I do believe very strongly that the polluter must pay. Our bill does not protect people who are responsible for cleanup under Superfund or any other statute. If you make a mess, if you despoil the environment, you still will be held responsible for cleaning it up. We maintain ``the polluter pays'' principle that underpins many of our hazardous waste statutes.
The committee considered and rejected efforts to waive the application of other statutes, such as RCRA and TSCA, to these brownfield sites. It was too complicated to try to amend other statutes, and I appreciate the fact that our foursome stuck together during these amendments because it would have opened up a can of worms. What we did was we kept this narrow. We kept it on the issue of brownfields. We kept out extraneous issues. Again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation on that.
Our bill encourages States to take the lead on brownfield sites. It does set some limitations on EPA's enforcement authority under Superfund for sites covered by this bill. We believe this is important in gaining strong support. I am comfortable with this feature because there are a number of safeguards that ensure that a secure Federal safety net remains. These safeguards are an essential part of the compromise that is the heart of the bill. They ensure that EPA can apply its full Superfund enforcement authority under a variety of circumstances.
Most important to me_and it was a tough debate that we had_was the guarantee that EPA could intervene if a site threatens to cause immediate and substantial endangerment to the public's health or welfare or to the environment. I believe this language guarantees that if a State's oversight of a cleanup fails to protect our citizens or our environment, the Federal Government can intervene. We are clear that we want the State to be responsible, but if there is a problem which will result in an immediate threat to people's health, the EPA can enter. It was a careful balance that went into crafting that provision as well as the rest of the bill.
Together I believe we have produced a sensible and balanced bill that will help encourage the recycling of brownfield sites that now sit unused around the Nation.
In closing, one more time I will show our success story that happened in Emeryville. First, let's show the before picture again. This is what we are talking about, sites that look like this, sites that are harmful. People don't want to go on them. People are afraid of them. There is no economic development in the middle of our urban areas. Then when we work together, we can bring business interests to the site and we start to see people use the site again. The site will bring in revenues.
I thank my colleagues for all their hard work, and I yield the floor.
Congressional Record
4/25/01
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. I compliment the efforts of Senators Smith, Reid, Chafee, and Boxer. They have done a great job in moving this legislation forward.
I was very disappointed that this bill was not enacted last year, it represents a lot of hard work and compromise. I think this bill is a win-win for the environment, for local communities and for local economies. More hazardous waste sites will be cleaned up, and we'll have more parks and open space, more economic redevelopment, and more jobs. This bill will make cleaning up polluted sites easier by reducing the many legal and regulatory barriers to brownfields redevelopment while providing much needed cleanup funds.
The brownfields bill is important for rural areas, not just big cities. In Montana, we have hundreds of sites that have been polluted by mining, timber processing, railroad work, and other industrial activities that were part of our economic development.
I worked hard on a very similar bill last year, together with many of my colleagues. Last year, it was the first bipartisan brownfields bill ever introduced in the Senate. I was thrilled to cosponsor the bill again this year, under the leadership of Senator Smith and Senator Reid. This bill has been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including the National Association of Realtors, the Conference of Mayors, and the Trust for Public Lands. It represents a hard-won, delicately balanced compromise.
Superfund critics have long argued that the possibility that EPA could second-guess state-approved cleanups has discouraged brownfields remediation. At the same time, I and others have argued that we need to preserve the federal government's ability to use Superfund authorities to deal with dangerous situations at sites cleaned up under state programs in the rare case in which the cleanup is inadequate and there is a threat to human health or the environment.
The tension between these two views has been one of the major obstacles to moving brownfields legislation in the past. This bill forges a new compromise on this issue, and it is a good compromise. Both sides came to the table and made some important concessions. The bill is not perfect, it is not everything I wanted. It is not everything some of my colleagues across the aisle wanted, either. But, as I have often said, let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And this is a good bill that will do good things for the environment, for communities, for businesses and for the Nation. These sites need to be cleaned up, for the health and well-being of our citizens and our environment, and doing nothing is no longer an option.
Hopefully, two other bills will come to the floor that would expand the abilities of the Economic Development Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help local communities physically develop and restore brownfields sites to productive use. Taken together, S. 350 and these two bills would make up a complete brownfields redevelopment package. They will provide critical economic and technical assistance to communities during all stages of brownfields redevelopment_from an initial site assessment to putting the finishing touches on a new apartment building or city park.
I am happy to hear that the administration has expressed its support for S. 350. The brownfields bill is an outstanding example of a bipartisan effort to help communities across the nation. I hope we can all work together to make sure it is signed into law this year.
Congressional Record
4/25/01
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this important legislation to provide States and local communities with the tools and the resources they need to clean up and reuse polluted industrial properties, turning them from eyesores into opportunities and leveraging literally billions of dollars in economic benefits.
The legislation we are voting on today, S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, represents the ultimate form of recycling. It is the recycling of one of our most precious and scarce natural resources; namely, our land. Our environmental resources, as our financial resources, are not limitless. The cleanup and reuse of brownfield sites allows businesses and developers to use existing infrastructure so we can reduce sprawl and preserve our precious green space and farmland and, at the same time, it provides an opportunity to energize local economies and create new jobs.
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, an act which, as the President knows so well, enjoys broad bipartisan support of a majority of the Senate, as well as of the administration, a diversity of State and local government organizations, business interests, and environmental advocacy groups.
This bill, S. 350, is an important step in building on the proven success of existing brownfields efforts. The bill authorizes the establishment of a flexible program to provide grants and loans to State, tribal, and local governments and nonprofit organizations to assess, safely clean up, and reuse brownfields. It includes important provisions that promote assistance for small, low-income communities, as well as supporting efforts to create or preserve open space and furthering participation by the public in cleanup decisions.
The bill provides appropriate liability relief for innocent parties who want to clean up and reuse brownfield sites, while maintaining the necessary Federal safety net to address serious cleanup issues.
Last week, I was delighted to learn that the EPA was making grants for additional brownfields funding for Utica, NY. I remember the first time I visited downtown Utica and saw all of the old mill and factory buildings, which already were tied in with existing utilities, providing an excellent opportunity for remediation that could be then followed by immediate redevelopment, only to be told because they were built on old industrial sites, because the manufacturing processes that occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries involved dangerous chemicals and other contaminants, these brownfield sites in the middle of downtown Utica were too expensive for private developers and the local community to clean up. I am delighted that Utica and other such places around New York, including Albany and Chautauqua Counties and a village of Haverstram in Rockland County also received brownfields funding.
We have seen the benefits of brownfields cleanup and revitalization throughout New York, from Buffalo to Glen Cove, and all the places in between. I stood on the shore at Glen Cove, one of the most beautiful communities on the north shore of Long Island, and could see the effects of the cleanup of brownfields that are going to turn what had been a contaminated I80waste area into a place that can be part of waterfront redevelopment.
To date, over 20 communities across New York have received assistance through EPA's existing brownfields program. It is my hope and belief that there will be many more when we finish this legislation, which will more than double the resources currently available for brownfields cleanup across our country.
This bill strikes a delicate balance. There are compromises and tradeoffs. I appreciate the hard work of the committee in a bipartisan fashion to move this legislation forward. I take this opportunity to thank the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I am honored to serve, particularly our chairman, Senator Smith, and our ranking member, Senator Reid, and the two Senators who pushed this legislation forward because of their respective chairing and ranking positions on a subcommittee; namely, Senators Chafee and Boxer. I also thank the staffs, including my staff, the committee staff, and the individual staffs of the Senators who worked so quickly and diligently to move this legislation to the floor today.
The managers' amendment includes a number of significant provisions. Again, I applaud and thank everyone who was part of this process. I am grateful; two of the managers' amendments I personally sponsored will be part of this legislation. One provision will help focus the delivery of brownfields assistance to communities that experience a higher than normal incidence of diseases such as cancer, asthma, or birth defects.
Two weeks ago, I was very fortunate and honored to go with my friend, the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid, to Fallon, NV, where we held a hearing on a cancer cluster. It is a lovely community, 50, 60 miles from Reno. It is a small community, maybe 30,000 people at most, in a sparsely populated county. They have had 12 cases of leukemia among children in the last 2 years. Clearly, it is a cancer cluster. We don't know what is causing it. Many believe, and much of the testimony we heard certainly suggests, this rate of cancer in this kind of a cluster could be linked with exposure to hazardous substances.
The important provision we have added to the bill will offer assistance to communities already burdened with severe health programs, to help them clean up the polluted sites that may contribute to these problems. We will have to do a lot more, and I will be working with Senator Reid under his leadership to think about what else we can do to address environmental health issues.
We certainly have more than our share in New York. I am hoping that in the future we will have a hearing in New York, perhaps on Long Island, to talk about the cancer clusters. We have asthma clusters; we have diabetes clusters. We need to figure out what we are doing or what we could stop doing or how we can clean up whatever might be associated.
Under S. 350, States that receive brownfields funding must survey and inventory sites in the State. I was concerned there might be sites that would be overlooked in communities that are small or sparsely populated such as Fallon, or low-income or minority such as those in New York City.
I am pleased that with this provision in the managers' amendment we will be able to include public participation so individuals can request a nearby brownfield site be assessed under a State program. States would maintain discretion and flexibility to set up this process however they best see fit, but concerned citizens would not be shut out of the process. They could participate and ask their particular brownfield site be given some attention and perhaps even expedited cleanup because of the impact on their local community.
In every corner of our country there are abandoned, blighted areas that used to be the engines of the industrial economy or served in our national defense. We were privileged to hear testimony from the admiral who runs the naval airbase that trains the top gun pilots outside of Fallon. They use a lot of jet fuel. They have to occasionally burn it. They sometimes have to drop it in their flight. They were very willing to come forward and talk about what the defense industry can do to help in this area.
Many of the places suffering from brownfields were in the forefront of creating the strong economy and the strong national defense system we enjoy today. I think we have to pay attention to the needs of these communities.
I thank all who have made it possible for us to consider this bill today. I urge my colleagues to join in passing this important piece of environmental and economic and health care legislation. I hope our colleagues in the House will work to move their own brownfields bill so we can finally get about the business of revitalizing these sites so they can realize their economic potential and preserve our country's beautiful, open spaces, and revitalize our downtown areas.
I yield the floor.
Congressional Record
4/25/01
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, The managers' amendment states that consultation with the State shall not limit the ability of the Administrator in making a determination, as the result of new information, that contamination or conditions at a facility present a threat requiring further remediation to protect public health or welfare or the environment. Consultation with the State is important and is addressed in this section and other portions of the bill. It is not intended, however, to be an open-ended process. Consultation should not delay or prohibit the Administrator's ability to determine that a site presents a threat that requires further remediation.
[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Yellowsub1962 ]