Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 71 (Tuesday, June 4, 2002)

[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.

____________________