[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 71 (Tuesday, June 4, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3095-H3099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT ENHANCEMENT ACT

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2941) to facilitate the provision of assistance by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development for the cleanup and 
economic redevelopment of brownfields, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2941

       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 ``Brownfields Redevelopment 
     Enhancement Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) returning the Nation's brownfield sites to productive 
     economic use could generate more that 550,000 additional jobs 
     and up to $2,400,000,000 in new tax revenues for cities and 
     towns;
       (2) redevelopment of brownfield sites and reuse of 
     infrastructure at such sites will protect natural resources 
     and open spaces;
       (3) lack of funding for redevelopment is a primary obstacle 
     impeding the reuse of brownfield sites;
       (4) the Department of Housing and Urban Development is the 
     agency of the Federal Government that is principally 
     responsible for supporting community development and 
     encouraging productive land use in urban areas of the United 
     States;
       (5) grants under the Brownfields Economic Development 
     Initiative of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
     provide local governments with a flexible source of funding 
     to pursue brownfields redevelopment through land acquisition, 
     site preparation, economic development, and other activities;
       (6) to be eligible for such grant funds, a community must 
     be willing to pledge community development block grant funds 
     as partial collateral for a loan guarantee under section 108 
     of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and 
     this requirement is a barrier to many local communities that 
     are unable or unwilling to pledge such block grant funds as 
     collateral; and
       (7) by de-linking grants for brownfields development from 
     section 108 community development loan guarantees and the 
     related pledge of community development block grant funds, 
     more communities will have access to funding for 
     redevelopment of brownfield sites.
       (b) Purposes.--The purpose of this Act is to provide cities 
     and towns with more flexibility for brownfields development, 
     increased accessibility to brownfields redevelopment funds, 
     and greater capacity to coordinate and collaborate with other 
     government agencies--
       (1) by providing additional incentives to invest in the 
     cleanup and development of brownfield sites; and
       (2) by de-linking grants for brownfields development from 
     community development loan guarantees and the related pledge 
     of community development block grant funds.

     SEC. 3. BROWNFIELDS DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.

       Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 123. BROWNFIELDS DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants under this 
     section, on a competitive basis as specified in section 102 
     of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act 
     of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545), only to eligible public entities 
     (as such term is defined in section 108(o) of this title) and 
     Indian tribes for carrying out projects and activities to 
     assist the environmental cleanup and development of 
     brownfield sites, which shall include mine-scarred lands.
       ``(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Amounts from grants under this 
     section shall--
       ``(1) be used, as provided in subsection (a) of this 
     section, only for activities specified in section 108(a); and
       ``(2) be subject to the same requirements that, under 
     section 101(c) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 104(b), 
     apply to grants under section 106.
       ``(c) Availability of Assistance.--The Secretary shall not 
     require, for eligibility for a grant under this section, that 
     such grant amounts be used only in connection or conjunction 
     with projects and activities assisted with a loan guaranteed 
     under section 108.
       ``(d) Applications.--Applications for assistance under this 
     section shall be in the form and in accordance with 
     procedures as shall be established by the Secretary.
       ``(e) Selection Criteria and Leveraging.--The Secretary 
     shall establish criteria for awarding grants under this 
     section, which may include the extent to which the applicant 
     has obtained other Federal, State, local, or private funds 
     for the projects and activities to be assisted with grant 
     amounts and such other criteria as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate. Such criteria shall include consideration of the 
     appropriateness of the extent of financial leveraging 
     involved in the projects and activities to be funded with the 
     grant amounts.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003, 
     2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.''.

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT AS 
                   ELIGIBLE CDBG ACTIVITY.

       (a) Technical Correction.--The penultimate proviso of the 
     first undesignated paragraph of the item relating to 
     ``Community Development Block Grants Fund'' in title II of 
     the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1997 (Public Law 104-204; 110 Stat. 2887) shall be treated as 
     having amended section 105(a) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) to read as such 
     section was in effect on September 30, 1995.
       (b) Brownfields Redevelopment activities.--Section 105(a) 
     of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5305(a)), as in effect pursuant to subsection (a) of 
     this section, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (24), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (25), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(26) environmental cleanup and economic development 
     activities related to brownfield projects in conjunction with 
     the appropriate environmental regulatory agencies.''.

     SEC. 5. PILOT PROGRAM FOR NATIONAL REDEVELOPMENT OF 
                   BROWNFIELDS.

       Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5308(q)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Pilot program for national redevelopment of 
     brownfields.--
       ``(A) In general.--Using any amounts made available under 
     this subsection, the Secretary may establish a pilot program 
     under which grants under this subsection are used to develop, 
     maintain, and administer (including the payment of an entity 
     or entities selected pursuant to subparagraph (B)) a common 
     loan pool of development loans for brownfield redevelopment 
     projects made on behalf of eligible public entities with the 
     proceeds of obligations guaranteed under this section, 
     including related security and a common loans loss reserve 
     account, for the benefit of participants in the pilot 
     program.
       ``(B) Selection of program managers and contractors.--The 
     Secretary may select an entity or entities on a competitive 
     or noncompetitive basis to carry out any of the functions 
     involved in the pilot program.
       ``(C) Terms for participation.--Participation by eligible 
     public entities in the pilot program shall be under such 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary may require.
       ``(D) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary--
       ``(i) for grants under this subsection to be used only in 
     conjunction with the pilot program under this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) for costs of carrying out the pilot program under 
     this paragraph and ensuring that the program is carried out 
     in an effective, efficient, and viable manner.''.

     SEC. 6. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW USE OF CDBG FUNDS TO 
                   ADMINISTER RENEWAL COMMUNITIES.

       Section 105(a)(13) of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(13)) is amended by inserting 
     ``and renewal communities'' after ``enterprise zones''.

     SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply only with 
     respect to amounts made available for fiscal year 2003 and 
     fiscal years thereafter for use under the provisions of law 
     amended by this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 
will each control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley), for setting this bill up and sending it to the floor, and I 
rise today in strong

[[Page H3096]]

support of H.R. 2941, the Brownfields Redevelopment Act.
  Brownfields redevelopment is an issue of critical importance to our 
Nation as a whole. One of my priorities in Congress has been the need 
for saving green spaces. A key to saving open space is directing new 
growth to those areas that we have already developed, where we have 
already got infrastructure, and where established communities are 
looking for revitalization: Our brownfields. Too many communities are 
growing like trees, with ever expanding rings of outward growth but 
very often the community in the middle falls out of that growth 
pattern. We need to revitalize our existing communities. This saves 
valued green spaces from uncontrolled growth and gives us much more 
pleasant communities in which to live.
  A large part of this effort must focus on the spaces that we can 
rehabilitate for human habitation. This helps communities by returning 
these properties as tax ratables to the tax rolls. It should be our 
goal to ensure that any planned growth of communities has as a goal the 
greatest possible cleanup and redevelopment of their contaminated 
properties. Otherwise growth will continue the trend of sacrificing 
more and more of our open spaces as we simply abandon areas that have 
been harmed.
  The Brownfields Redevelopment Act is simple and clear. First, it 
makes HUD's Brownfield Economic Development Initiative Fund work better 
for local communities by taking off the strings of cumbersome Federal 
loan requirements. The law which this provision changes has prevented 
my home county of Westchester County, New York, from applying for a 
Brownfields Redevelopment grant because they could not meet these 
requirements.
  Second, it creates a pilot program to promote more brownfields 
locations with HUD support. In addition, the legislation makes 
brownfield redevelopment a qualified use for community development 
block grants. These provisions will assist our communities in 
addressing brownfields problems.
  We know that blighted brownfields are more than an environment-only 
problem. These are places that need investments of infrastructure and 
economic development and business growth. HUD is well suited to give 
local governments the tools they need to invest in the revitalization 
of brownfields properties in partnership with other Federal agencies, 
the States, and the private sector.
  This legislation represents an important step toward the ultimate 
goal of cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields sites. I believe 
making progress on this issue is something that will require local as 
well as State and Federal cooperation and partnerships. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) has introduced his Brownfields 
Redevelopment Act in an effort for the Federal Government to play a 
larger part in assisting localities in this effort. This legislation 
makes a good step in the right direction, and as a cosponsor it has my 
full support.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for 
championing this issue, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for working in a 
strong bipartisan effort to move this legislation, and I thank the 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for his efforts to 
ensure the legislation is moved quickly through this process.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join us in strong support 
of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) having 
accurately described this bill, I will not repeat what the gentlewoman 
said. I will point out that this is an important example of the need 
for us to act through government to clean up some of the mistakes made 
by the private sector. We have brownfields because we used to 
underregulate. We have brownfields because there used to not be 
appropriate environmental protections.
  Today, now that we have environmental rules, we are much less likely 
to get new brownfields, that is, new areas in cities that have been 
rendered uninhabitable by industrial excesses. But we have the 
industrial excesses of the past from a time when we did not have 
environmental regulation. For those who think there is somehow an 
opposition between the private sector and the public sector, and if the 
private sector does well and we do not need a public sector, this bill 
shows exactly the opposite to be the case.
  We need a flexible, well-financed and vigorous public sector so that 
the current residents can literally clean up the mess that they 
inherited from private sector activities, not because the people in the 
private sector were bad people or trying to be hurtful, but because in 
the absence of the sensible environmental regulation, what they did 
left this residue behind. I think this is a reasonable way to make a 
good government program even more flexible. I hope this legislation is 
approved.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2941, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance 
of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) to 
control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 2941, the Brownfield Development 
Enhancement Act of 2001, is to provide communities with new options 
when it comes to financing brownfields redevelopment projects.
  The best way to explain this bill is to begin by describing how the 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's section 108 loan 
program and the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, or BEDI, 
grant programs work. If a local community wishes to pursue cleanup and 
redevelopment funds from HUD, first, they must apply for a section 108 
loan. In order to secure this loan, they must put up a portion of their 
Community Development block grant money as collateral. After obtaining 
the section 108 loan, cities may then apply for a BEDI grant.
  Unfortunately, many cities are extremely hesitant to tie up their 
CDBO funds as loan collateral. Further, some States actually prohibit 
their cities from doing this. Because these cities are locked out of 
the section 108 loan program, they are locked out of the BEDI grant 
application process as well.
  H.R. 2941 offers a fundamental change to the status quo by delinking 
the BEDI grant program from the section 108 loan program. Additionally, 
this bill also creates a pilot program for a revolving loan pool. As a 
result, cities will have new options, they can proceed, as under 
current law, by applying for a section 108 loan, to be secured by a 
portion of their CDBO funds, and then apply for a BEDI grant; cities 
can simply apply for a BEDI grant; cities can apply for pilot program 
funds; or any combination of the above which best meets their project 
needs.
  Before I continue, I would like to thank HUD Secretary Mel Martinez 
and his staff for their assistance and insight on this program. I also 
appreciate the support I received from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, and the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the chairwoman of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. In addition, I would 
like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has 
worked tirelessly on this issue since H.R. 2941 was introduced.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2941, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act.
  Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under used industrial and 
commercial facilities where

[[Page H3097]]

expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived 
environmental contamination. Cleaning up these sites and redeveloping 
them could generate 550,000 additional jobs and up to $2.4 billion in 
new taxes revenues for cities and towns.
  This bill will help our communities clean up the estimated 500,000 
brownfield sites, including Kansas City, Missouri's Central Industrial 
District (CID). Also known as the ``West Bottoms,'' Kansas City's 
historic Central Industrial District is a cradle of commerce and 
industry. It is the centerpiece of the City's Brownfields Program which 
has been the target for infrastructure investment by the City of Kansas 
City due to its development potential and central location. The City's 
Brownfields program has been successful in its efforts to work with a 
number of private sector entities to create a number of new development 
opportunities. Past infrastructure improvements have included storm 
water facilities, roads, and streetscape rehabilitation. This bill will 
provide for further investment, development, and environmental 
restoration at formerly used industrial sites, salvage yards, and other 
chemically contaminated sites such as the Blue River Industrial 
Corridor and the Missouri Riverfront Heritage Trail.
  Although the Housing and Urban Development's Section 108 loan program 
encourages site cleanup, cities are required to pledge their community 
development block grant (CDBG) funds as partial collateral for the loan 
guarantee. Few small cities can afford to tie up their CDBG funds this 
way. Moreover, under current law, the Section 108 loan program is tied 
to the Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant program. 
As a result, if cities cannot obtain the loan, they can't obtain the 
grant. H.R. 2941 provides cities with more options by delinking the 
BEDI grant program from the Section 108 loan guarantee program.
  Empowering cities to clean up our nation's brownfields will reap many 
benefits for our communities. Cleaning up these sites will create a 
healthier environment and help preserve existing green spaces. When 
cities work with developers and builders to revitalize existing sales, 
they create an incentive for reuse as opposed to new development.
  This bill will help communities redevelop contaminated sites by 
encouraging economic development. H.R. 2941 will help clean up our 
environment, revitalize the economy, and create livable communities for 
our children and future generations.
  The passage of this bill is essential to the Kansas City Blue River 
Industrial Corridor, West Bottoms/Central Industrial District, and the 
Missouri Riverfront Heritage Trail.
  I urge my colleagues to invest in our future and vote in support of 
H.R. 2941.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2941, the 
Brownfields, Redevelopment Enhancement Act. This important legislation 
will assist in the redevelopment of abandoned contaminated industrial 
sites in our nation's communities. During debate on this legislation 
within the Financial Services Committee, however, the lack of a 
definition of what constituted brownfields concerned me. More 
specifically, I wanted to ensure that the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development would consider the cleanup of mine-scarred land 
eligible for funding within its brownfields program.
  Within my congressional district, we have significant amounts of 
abandoned mine land, some of it located in or near town or city 
centers, and therefore ripe for economic development opportunities. 
Some of this land is also contaminated or potentially contaminated, 
sometimes having become a dumping ground for other waste, and it often 
contributes to water pollution, particularly acid-mine drainage. The 
redevelopment of this under-used land through HUD's brownfields program 
could help to improve the economic climate of the region.
  Additionally, when Congress considered the brownfields law last year 
affecting the Environmental Protection Agency's programs, we provided 
for the eligibility of mine-scarred land. I therefore wanted to ensure 
parity between the agencies' programs to facilitate the efficient use 
of government resources to reclaim land. As a result of my concerns, I 
worked with the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee during our 
deliberations on H.R. 2941 to specifically include mine-scarred land 
within the bill.
  From my perspective, the expansion of the definition to include 
excavation of culm banks and the removal of other mining waste at 
abandoned mine sites will benefit business, generate jobs, improve the 
environment, and improve the health and economy of thousands of 
communities across the nation. In closing, I thank the Chairman and the 
Committee and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for recognizing 
the importance of this issue and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this bill.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2941, the 
``Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act.'' This legislation 
includes two important provisions which will enhance the ability of 
localities to promote economic development and redevelopment.
  First, the bill removes an unnecessary impediment to the use of HUD 
brownfields redevelopment funds. Redevelopment of brownfields sites is 
an important economic development activity in many older regions of the 
country, and HUD brownfields grant funds provide sorely needed funds to 
localities for this purpose. However, under current law, a locality may 
not apply for such grants unless it also agrees to use a CDBG Section 
108 loan in conjunction with the proposed project.
  This loan requirement is a significant impediment to full and 
effective use of the HUD brownfields program. It is awkward to use 
loans for brownfields projects, since repayment is linked to land re-
sales, which are uncertain and uneven. Since localities must pledge 
future CDBG funds to repay Section 108 loans, many are reluctant to 
even apply for brownfields grants, for fear of jeopardizing critically 
needed economic development funds. Therefore, appropriately, H.R. 2941 
``de-links'' HUD brownfields grants and Section 108 loans; that is, it 
removes the requirement that a brownfield grant applicant must also 
commit to use a Section 108 loan.
  Secondly, the bill includes an amendment that I authored, and which 
the majority agreed to during committee consideration, to explicitly 
allow CDBG funds to be used for the administration of Renewal 
Communities.
  Currently, the code permits CDBG funds to be used to administer 
Empowerment Zones, designated areas which enjoy economic development 
tax incentives. Recently, Congress authorized, and HUD designated, 40 
Renewal Community areas, under a program similar to Empowerment Zones. 
My amendment, included in H.R. 2941, would permit localities to use 
CDBG funds to administer Renewal Communities, in the same way they are 
already permitted to administer Empowerment Zones. This will help 
ensure that Renewal Communities are able to achieve their full 
potential.
  Finally, I would like to address a concern raised by some 
environmental groups that the legislation does not include a definition 
of brownfields.
  These groups have suggested that the bill should include the 
``brownfields'' definition used in the recently passed Public Law 107-
118. The purpose of incorporating a definition into the code is to 
prevent use of brownfields funds [or CDBG funds used for brownfields 
purposes] to pay for cleanups where there is a viable polluter 
associated with the site, or at heavily contaminated sites to pay for 
remediation under state voluntary cleanup programs.
  This is a valid concern. During committee consideration of the bill, 
this issue was raised, and efforts were made between committee and 
floor consideration to agree on a definition that would prevent the 
types of use cited above. Ultimately, we could not agree on a 
definition with the majority. However, with these environmental 
concerns in mind, I believe we should move forward with the legislation 
at this time, for a number of reasons.
  First, I would like to point out that this bill does not create any 
concerns that do not already exist. That is because neither the HUD 
brownfields program nor the CDBG program (which permits brownfields 
use) include a statutory definition of brownfields. Enacting no bill 
this Congress will only ensure that the statutory lack of a brownfields 
definition will continue to exist.
  Secondly, I would note that, at the request of the minority, the 
Committee Report includes language that states that ``The Committee 
intends that HUD will continue its current practice of consulting with 
other Federal agencies in carrying out the Department's remediation and 
redevelopment activities, under its brownfields program.'' The report 
further states that HUD will continue to defer to the EPA and other 
federal agencies with regard to highly contaminated areas, and will 
continue to respect orders by the EPA and other agencies in such areas 
in carrying out the HUD brownfields program.
  The clear intent is that HUD brownfields funds will continue to be 
used for economic redevelopment activities, as opposed to being used to 
relieve private parties of liability or to substitute for cleanup under 
federal environmental laws. However, if and when this bill goes to 
conference with the Senate, it would be appropriate to develop a 
brownfields definition which addresses these environmental concerns.
  For all these reasons, I urge passage of the legislation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, 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 land once 
occupied by mighty manufacturing facilities and thriving communities. 
Last December, Congress passed H.R. 2869, the Small Business Liability 
Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act which originated from the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce and provided a $200 million 
authorization each year for 5 years for the Environmental Protection 
Agency's successful

[[Page H3098]]

brownfields loan and grant program. That bill became Public Law 107-118 
with President Bush's signature on January 11, 2002.
  The bill under consideration today, H.R. 2941, provides increased 
access for local entities to brownfield redevelopment funds from the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It does so by de-
linking section 108 loan guarantees from HUD's Brownfield Economic 
Development Initiative (BEDI) grants.
  Mr. Speaker, while the goal of this legislation is worthy, and one I 
support, its failure to include the definition of the term 
``brownfields'' contained in Public Law 107-118 is a serious deficiency 
that could lead to mischief with public revenues. I note that the 
environmental community has also raised concerns about the absence of 
an appropriate definition in a letter to Members of Congress dated 
April 26, 2002.
  The brownfield definition in Public Law 107-118 was designed to 
ensure that grants and loans using public funds did not go to seriously 
contaminated sites that fall within the purview of other cleanup 
authorities such as the Superfund program, the Solid Waste Disposal 
Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, and others where the polluters could be held 
responsible for the cleanup. The absence of a statutory definition of 
the term ``brownfields'' in H.R. 2941 creates a potential for 
overlapping federal programs in conflict with one another, or at best a 
lack of coordination in the use of federal funds.
  The remedy is an easy one and should be noncontroversial since the 
Congress and President Bush have already agreed on a definition of 
``brownfields'' in Public Law 107-118.
  While the Committee report accompanying H.R. 2941 urges HUD to 
continue to defer to federally directed and funded remedial cleanup 
activities of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other applicable 
Federal Agencies, I believe that a statutory definition of the term 
``brownfields'' is necessary to avoid conflict between competing 
federal agency programs and potential misuse of taxpayer funds.
  Today I will support this legislation with the expectation that any 
bill emerging from a conference between the House and Senate will 
contain a definition of the term ``brownfields'' consistent with Public 
Law 107-118.
         American Public Health Association; Friends of the Earth; 
           Natural Resources Defense Council; Physicians for 
           Social Responsibility Sierra Club; US PIRG,
                                                   April 26, 2002.
     Re H.R. 2491, Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act.
     Hon. Michael Oxley,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Hon. John LaFalce,
     U.S. House of Representatives.
       Dear Representatives: We are writing on behalf of our more 
     than one million members to urge the House of Representatives 
     to ensure that H.R. 2941 contains a definition of the term 
     ``brownfields'' that is consistent with existing law. H.R. 
     2941 could threaten public health and weaken the polluter-
     pays principle at heavily contaminated toxic waste sites if 
     its definition of ``brownfields'' does not track the 
     definition contained in Public Law 107-118, the Small 
     Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act 
     of 2001 (``Brownfields Act''). Therefore, we urge the House 
     of Representatives to ensure that H.R. 2941 incorporates by 
     reference the definition of brownfields contained in section 
     (39) of the Brownfields Act. Codifying this definition would 
     prevent current or future administrations from arbitrarily 
     weakening existing protections.
       Members of the Senate and House negotiated for years over 
     an appropriate definition of the term ``brownfields.'' This 
     issue was vital for two reasons. First, an overly broad 
     definition could allow federal agencies to use taxpayer funds 
     to pay for cleanups even when there was a viable polluter 
     associated with a site. This would weaken the polluter-pays 
     principle, which is the foundation of federal cleanup 
     programs. This principle ensures that polluters, rather than 
     taxpayers, pay to clean up their contamination. It provides 
     an incentive to reduce the use of and responsibly manage 
     toxic chemicals, thereby decreasing the chance of creating 
     future toxic waste sites.
       Second, a broad definition could allow federal agencies to 
     use taxpayer funds at heavily contaminates sites to pay for 
     remediation under state voluntary cleanup programs. Data on 
     state voluntary cleanup programs demonstrate that such 
     programs have inconsistent cleanup standards, public 
     participation requirements, technical expertise and oversight 
     authorities. These failings can threaten public health, 
     particularly at sites containing high levels of 
     contamination.
       Congress agreed on a definition of the term ``brownfields'' 
     in the Brownfields Act, which President Bush signed into law 
     on January 11, 2002. The Brownfields Act initially broadly 
     defines the term, but then excludes many heavily contaminated 
     toxic waste sites from the definition. This ensures that 
     cleanup officials can continue to use the polluter-pays 
     principle to enforce federal laws that incorporate tough 
     cleanup standards. The law permits an expansion of this 
     definition--on a site-by-site basis--where doing so would not 
     endanger public health.
       H.R. 2941's definition of ``brownfields'' contains none of 
     these protections. Instead, it contains a very broad 
     definition of the term ``brownfields'' that would allow 
     federal agencies to use taxpayer funds to pay for remediation 
     under state voluntary cleanup programs at heavily 
     contaminated sites. H.R. 2941 could also allow federal 
     agencies to use taxpayer funds to cleanup sites that have 
     viable businesses that caused the contamination.
       The Department of Housing and Urban Development's 
     Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (``BEDI'') could 
     provide significant taxpayer funding for activities that 
     could threaten public health and weaken application of the 
     polluter-pays principle. While BEDI contains only about $25 
     million, state and local government use BEDI funds to access 
     hundreds of million of dollars in low-interest loans under 
     the federal Community Development Block Grant Program 
     (``CDBG''). The CDBG and BEDI programs allow funded entities 
     to use the federal taxpayer funds on remedial activities. 
     (See www.hud.gov/bedifact.cfm.) In fact, HUD's webpage states 
     ``[t]he most common use of CBDG funds for brownfields has 
     been for remediation, followed by site assessment and 
     redevelopment.'' This means taxpayers could pay for cleanups, 
     rather the parties responsible for the contamination.
       Incorporating the definition from the Brownfield Act into 
     H.R. 2941 should be non-controversial. The House, Senate, and 
     administration all agreed on a definition of the term 
     ``brownfields'' in 2002. Representatives of HUD have stated 
     that the agency does not fund cleanups at heavily 
     contaminated sites and that HUD supports the polluter-pays 
     principle. Staff for members on the House Financial Services 
     Committee concurred with the HUD representatives. Members of 
     the environmental community urged the staff to modify the 
     definition of brownfields consistent with this shared 
     understanding. Unfortunately, some staff opposed codifying 
     this understanding because they claimed that it would 
     increase red tape. However, codifying agency practice should 
     not increase regulatory burden.
       Expediting the cleanup of brownfields is a priority for our 
     groups and should be a priority for federal and state 
     governments. However, government should not create avenues 
     for development that could endanger public health or reduce 
     incentives for polluters to manage their toxic wastes 
     responsibly. We urge the House of Representatives to help 
     ensure that people can safely use new residential, commercial 
     and other developments, and that polluting industries do not 
     create new toxic waste sites.
           Sincerely,
     Don Hoppert,
       Director of Federal Affairs, American Public Health 
     Association.
     Sara Zdeb,
       Legislative Representative, Friends of the Earth.
     Alys Campaigne,
       Legislative Director, Natural Resources Defense Council.
     Debbie Sease,
       Legislative Director, Sierra Club.
     Susan West Marmagas, MPH,
       Director, Environment and Health Program, Physicians for 
     Social Responsibility.
     Grant Cope,
       Staff Attorney, US PIRG.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
2941, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act. The primary 
purpose of this legislation is to increase the flexibility of the HUD 
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) and make the program 
available to more local governments.
  Since its inception the larger brownfields program has proven an 
effective government response to a serious environmental problem. 
Brownfields spot our country from coast to coast, especially in areas 
with high or formerly high levels of industrial activity. Brownfields 
are abandoned, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where 
further redevelopment is impeded by environmental contamination.
  The locations have potential for economic development but are held 
back by the environmental problems created by former or current users. 
The EPA program has successfully used a variety of financial and 
technical assistance to restore these sites which would otherwise be 
doomed to further decay.
  The Brownfields program was established by the EPA by regulation. 
Earlier this year Congress expressed its strong bipartisan support for 
brownfields cleanup by passing the Small Business Liability Relief and 
Brownfields Revitalization Act. Today's legislation builds on this 
effort by increasing the access to brownfields dollars.
  The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act, of which I am the lead 
Democratic sponsor, de-links Brownfields Economic Development Fund 
grants from the HUD Section

[[Page H3099]]

108 loan program. In its current construction, this linking requires 
that communities set aside Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 
funds as collateral for these loans. The delinking accomplished by our 
legislation will greatly increase the availability of brownfields 
cleanup funds for localities across the country.
  One of the reasons that the brownfields programs has been so 
successful is that it combines support from the environmental community 
with that from a strong coalition of local governments and developers. 
Some environmental groups have expressed concern that the definition of 
``brownfields'' in H.R. 2941 does not sufficiently track the definition 
in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization 
Act and could threaten the principle that polluters pay for their 
damage. While I support this legislation today, it is my intention to 
work with these groups to satisfy these concerns as this legislation 
moves forward.
  It has been my pleasure to work with my colleagues on the Financial 
Services Committee on this legislation which was introduced by 
Representative Gary Miller. I also want to thank Housing Subcommittee 
Ranking Member Barney Frank and his staff for their work on this bill.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. 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 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2941, 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.

                          ____________________