Volume 145, No. 105 covering the 1st Session of the 106th Congress (1999 - 2000) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“INTRODUCING THE LAND RECYCLING ACT OF 1999” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1626-E1627 on July 22, 1999.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
INTRODUCING THE LAND RECYCLING ACT OF 1999
______
HON. JAMES C. GREENWOOD
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 21, 1999
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Land Recycling Act of 1999 along with a strong bipartisan group of co-sponsors. The Act will remove Federal barriers to the cleanup of brownfields across the country. Removing these barriers will spur investors, benefit cleanup contractors and provide tools for state and local governments to tackle this longstanding problem. These efforts will provide for more livable, secure and vibrant neighborhoods. The blight that has dominated both urban and rural areas should not continue.
My bill will bring about aggressive state reclamation and cleanup of brownfields--abandoned or underutilized former industrial properties where actual or potential environmental contamination hinders redevelopment or prevents it altogether. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] estimates that there may be as many as 500,000 such sites nationwide. In my own congressional district, the southern portion of Bucks County is estimated to have 3 square miles of abandoned or underutilized industrial property.
These well-positioned, once-productive industrial real estate sites pose continuing risks to human health and the environment, erode state and local tax bases, hinder job growth, and allow existing infrastructure to go to waste. Moreover, the reluctance to utilize brownfields has led developers to bulldoze greenfields, which do not pose the risk of liability. Development in these areas contributes to suburban sprawl, and eliminates future recreational and agricultural uses. The Land Recycling Act will help stop urban erosion, and provide incentives to the redevelopment of our cities and towns across the country.
The brownfields problem has many causes. Foremost among them is the existing Federal law itself. Under the Superfund law, parties who currently own or operate a facility can be held 100 percent liable for any cleanup costs regardless of whether they contributed to the environmental contamination and regardless of whether they were in any way at fault. Because of the potential for this kind of liability, it is simply not worth dealing with the environmental exposure as long as developers have the alternative of building in rural areas where they are not exposed to liability. Owners can't sell and instead simply mothball them indefinitely. Clean-up contractors face uncertain liability.
Unrealistic standards and one-size-fits-all remedy selection also prevent voluntary actions and leave sites in years of red tape. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] poses nearly identical concerns. Under section 7003 of that law, for instance, EPA has broad authority to order a current owner-operator to address environmental contamination, again, regardless of fault.
Thirty-two states have launched so-called voluntary cleanup programs. We must help these programs thrive. Under these initiatives property owners comply with state cleanup plans and are then released from further environmental liability at the site. The subcommittee has received testimony in the past from a variety of states and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], demonstrating that these state voluntary cleanup programs have been responsible for the redevelopment of hundreds of brownfields. In the first year the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted its brownfields program, it succeeded in cleaning 35 sites.
Although many of these state laws have proven successful, states, businesses, and other experts have testified that the possibility of continuing Federal liability despite an agreement to limit State liability--the so-called dual master problem--seriously diminishes the effectiveness of State voluntary cleanup programs. Because redevelopers face the potential for cleanup obligations above and beyond what a State has decided is appropriate to protect health and the environment, they may hesitate to enter into agreements with sellers to purchase idle properties. The testimony establishes, in my mind, that if brownfields redevelopers could be confident that the cleanup agreements entered into with States would not be second-guessed by EPA, then they would be far more likely to agree to conduct a cleanup.
The Land Recycling Act of 1999 is based on the input of all of the stakeholders in the brownfields debate--the federal government, states, local governments, clean-up contractors, sellers, buyers, developers, lenders, environmentalists, community interests, and others--and in particular based on my own experiences in my district. Among other things, the bill provides ``finality'' for brownfields cleanups done pursuant to, and in compliance with, State programs, releasing buyers and sellers from liability and litigation under federal law. This certainly is number one on the wish list for developers and Rust Belt businesses. It will also provide liability protection under federal law for a number of nonpolluters, including: innocent landowners, prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, and response action contractors--thus removing disincentives to cleanup and reuse. This legislation will streamline the federal cleanup process and employ sound and objective science. Finally, the Land Recycling Act of 1999 will provide brownfield grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribes for the inventory and assessment of brownfield sites and the capitalization of revolving loan funds for cleanups.
I believe these straightforward solutions will provide an aggressive antidote to the wasteful burden of brownfields in America and are part of the overall set of solutions we must pursue to reform the nation's broken hazardous waste laws. I reemphasize this is a bipartisan effort. Reform efforts that are strictly Democrat or strictly Republican mean the group has a point to make but is not serious about enacting legislation in the 106th Congress.
While I am confident that the Land Recycling Act will go a very long way, we in Congress also have a larger task at hand--overhaul of the Superfund Program to ensure that we do not perpetuate the brownfields problem across the country. The Congress needs to address fairness and liability issues for small business recyclers and others. The Land Recycling Act of 1999 is only a piece of the puzzle. I look to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, and the chairman of the Finance and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, Mr. Oxley, for continued leadership on Superfund reform to address the areas that we can and must address. These two chairmen have fought for Superfund reform and continue their interest in real solutions. The bill last Congress, H.R. 3000, The Superfund Reform Act, had 19 Democrat cosponsors and represented a strong bipartisan effort. I hope that 1999 offers more promise, and that they will again consider including the Land Recycling Act as part of their Superfund reform effort.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up