[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                LEGISLATION TO HELP CLEAN UP BROWNFIELDS

                                 ______


                        HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 10, 1994

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation 
designed to help clean up and revitalize our Nation's abandoned, 
contaminated industrial areas, known as brownfields. This legislation, 
which I am introducing with my colleague from Ohio, Ralph Regula, has 
bipartisan support and was developed in consultation with the Clinton 
administration, State agencies, community and environmental 
organizations, and the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition. The 
consensus is clear: The crucial issue of brownfield redevelopment must 
be addressed within the context of Superfund reauthorization.
  Toward that goal, I am introducing two, separate, companion bills to 
spur brownfield clean up and redevelopment. The first bill, the 
Brownfield Clean Up and Redevelopment Act, would establish a process 
whereby States would be authorized to make final decisions on the clean 
up of sites with low- or medium-priority contamination. The other bill, 
the Brownfield Clean Up and Redevelopment Revolving Loan Fund Act, 
would provide loans to eligible sites in severely economically 
distressed areas that, with a small infusion of capital, would have the 
potential to attract private investment and create jobs in the 
communities where the clean ups are taking place.
  Both of these bills are designed to encourage privately funded clean 
up and redevelopment of contaminated industrial sites by removing some 
of the barriers that have driven prospective developers to build on 
undeveloped greenfield sites. State efforts to encourage voluntary 
clean up and redevelopment of low- and medium-priority sites are 
currently hindered by Federal requirements for environmental permits to 
conduct the clean ups and by the lack of Federal certification for 
these efforts. Even when these sites are not subject to Federal 
corrective action, the fear of liability for past contamination often 
inhibits their clean up and redevelopment. By giving States the power 
to create a distinct beginning and end to the voluntary clean up 
process, we remove a crucial roadblock to redevelopment.
  One of the most effective ways to promote the clean up of our 
Nation's hundreds of thousands of mildly contaminated sites is through 
State voluntary clean up programs. To date, almost 15 States--including 
my home State of Indiana--have implemented, or are in the process of 
implementing, voluntary clean up programs. By certifying State 
voluntary clean up programs at the Federal level, we would eliminate 
the threat of Federal EPA action on sites already deemed clean by State 
programs.
  I have worked with the Clinton administration to ensure some measure 
of Federal support for these state voluntary clean up programs, and am 
encouraged that the President has acknowledged this growing problem in 
his Superfund reauthorization proposal. In testimony before the Energy 
and Commerce Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, 
EPA Administrator Carol Browner noted that the growing trend towards 
the development of greenfields, rather than brownfields, contributes to 
suburban sprawl and exacerbates the chronic unemployment often found in 
innercity industrial areas.
  However, while the Clinton administration's Superfund reauthorization 
plan acknowledges the benefit of State voluntary clean up programs, it 
does not adequately address the major issues blocking the clean up of 
brownfield facilities. Specifically, the administration's proposal 
would not allow the Federal Government to certify State programs to be 
the final decisionmakers on clean up levels and liabilities for past 
problems. In addition, the administration's proposal does not address 
the need to have funding for site assessments of properties in 
distressed neighborhoods.
  The administration's plan does include an offer of technical 
assistance to State voluntary clean up programs. However, States and 
municipalities are unlikely to seek out such assistance because of 
concern that it would trigger greater EPA involvement and unnecessarily 
bog down clean up and redevelopment. By empowering certified State 
voluntary programs to make the final decisions regarding the clean up 
of low- and medium-priority sites, we would remove a crucial roadblock 
to economic and environmental development. Further, limited capital 
investment in depressed sites would help to rebuild communities that 
have been written off as lost causes.
  The revitalization and re-use of brownfield sites is extremely 
important to communities across the country, including those I 
represent in northwest Indiana, where more than 50,000 good jobs have 
been lost since 1977. Abandoned industrial facilities in these 
communities are most often viewed as problems to be avoided rather than 
opportunities for investment. Environmental liabilities, vague clean up 
guidelines, unrealistic clean up standards, and a lack of financing are 
very serious obstacles to re-use.
  The status quo seems to be that it is better to bulldoze and ignore 
abandoned industrial facilities and build on previously untouched land 
outside the city. However, this shift to outlying greenfields has 
serious adverse environmental and social impacts. Workers, businesses, 
and communities suffer when lender liability fears thwart investment in 
brownfield clean ups or modernization. Local and regional economies are 
stifled when mildly contaminated industrial sites remain dormant, 
because existing infrastructure goes unused. Finally, neighborhoods 
decay from ongoing economic and social distress.
  Time and time again, the compelling need to remove the uncertainty 
from the process of redeveloping brownfield sites has been 
demonstrated. For example, plans to build a $3 million lumber treatment 
plant, which would have provided 75 jobs in Hammond, IN, were recently 
abandoned after the discovery of low levels of contamination at the 
proposed site. The daunting prospect of entering into a project with 
uncertain consequences resulted in a loss for the city of Hammond of 
not only one prospective developer, but the potential of any future 
development on this 20-acre site.
  I urge your support for this effort to breathe life back into 
forgotten industrial communities. By encouraging the redevelopment of 
brownfields, we would achieve the dual purpose of revitalizing 
economically depressed areas and keeping our greenfields clean for 
future generations to enjoy.

                          ____________________