Mr. Chairman, I thank you for conducting this hearing on brownfields legislation. This subject is important to me, and to many of the Members of this Subcommittee. In the Detroit metropolitan area alone -- home to much of our country’s industrial strength for over 100 years -- brownfields cover tens of thousands of acres of land once occupied by mighty manufacturing facilities and thriving communities. Today, many of these properties are abandoned by their once-prosperous owners. They have become an eyesore and, in some instances, a threat to the livelihood and health of the citizens who live around them. This situation is not unique to the Detroit area, nor to urban areas generally.

This is the fourth Congress during which we have considered the reauthorization of the Superfund statute. In each Congress, among our numerous disagreements, we have collectively agreed that brownfields legislation is needed. We have gone so far as to agree on legislative language to clarify liability for lenders, bona fide prospective purchasers and innocent landowners. Lender liability relief was enacted into law because we achieved consensus among stakeholders and the Administration, and Members on both sides of the aisle. By contrast, the many controversial provisions we have considered in the past four Congresses have never come close to becoming public law -- and they have held hostage consensus provisions such as prospective purchaser and innocent landowner relief. As these consensus provisions languish, some Members in this body cannot resist the temptation to tinker, thus sparking controversy where there was none.

As the Committee of primary jurisdiction over the Superfund statute, it is incumbent upon us to understand what needs to be done with this statute, and what does not. While we have wasted time trying to build a better mousetrap that effectively guts the Superfund program, the Superfund program itself has progressed substantially, particularly in the past six years. By the end of this Congress, cleanup construction at about three quarters of all the Superfund sites in Michigan will be completed. A higher percentage of sites already have been completed in many other states.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have been a frequent critic of the Superfund program. Our oversight efforts in the 1980s taught the Agency some lasting lessons. At a time when Superfund lawyers have moved on to other specialties, we do not want to give them reason to flock to the Superfund practice once again. But, some of the legislation we will consider today will create just that incentive by introducing new and vague terms, and repealing well-settled law, for no good reason.

I am pleased to report that brownfields redevelopment is occurring, as local governments, developers and citizens are finding creative ways to build their own consensus and to re-build their communities. In Taylor, Michigan an abandoned eyesore will soon be replaced by a $9.8 million retail complex that will create 150 jobs. City officials plan to clean up another contaminated site and to create 250 jobs, 70 percent of which would be full-time. The city of Monroe also has been one of the leading communities in Michigan in redeveloping brownfields properties.

We can build upon this success with targeted, consensus legislation. The Administration must be part of this consensus. Of the three bills we will consider today, only H.R. 1750 has been endorsed by the President. The bill has 168 House co-sponsors. It also enjoys the support of the mayors of numerous major cities, including Mayor Dennis Archer and Mayor Wellington Webb, the current President of the Conference of Mayors. The National Realty Committee, which testified in Dearborn, Michigan on this subject back in 1995, also supports this bill. I am also pleased to announce that the National Association of Counties along with a number of other local government organizations have endorsed H.R. 1750 and expressed their strong interest in legislatively ratifying EPA’s current municipal settlement policy. I ask unanimous consent that the statements of these supporters of H.R. 1750, and others, be entered into the record.