[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1906-H1909]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT ENHANCEMENT ACT
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 644) to facilitate the provision of assistance
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the cleanup and
economic redevelopment of brownfields.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 644
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 than 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) Purpose.--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
development and redevelopment 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.
[[Page H1907]]
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 development and redevelopment of brownfield sites,
which shall include mine-scarred lands.
``(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Amounts from grants under this
section--
``(1) shall be used, as provided in subsection (a) of this
section, only for activities specified in section 108(a);
``(2) shall 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; and
``(3) shall not be provided or used in a manner that
reduces the financial responsibility of any nongovernmental
party that is responsible or potentially responsible for
contamination on any real property and the provision of
assistance pursuant to this section shall not in any way
relieve any party of liability with respect to such
contamination, including liability for removal and
remediation costs.
``(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) Definition of Brownfield Site.--For purposes of this
section, the term `brownfield site' has the meaning given
such term in section 101(39) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(39)). Such term includes a site that
meets the requirements under subparagraph (D) of such section
for inclusion as a brownfield site for purposes of section
104(k) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 9604(k)).
``(g) 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 2008
through 2012.''.
SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT AS
ELIGIBLE CDBG ACTIVITY.
(a) Technical Correction.--Subsection (a) of section 105 of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5305(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (24) and all that follows through
the end of the subsection and inserting the new paragraph
(24) inserted by section 2(3) of Public Law 108-146 (117
Stat. 1883);
(2) by adding at the end (after the paragraph added by
paragraph (1) of this subsection) the new paragraph (20)
added by section 907(b)(1)(C) of Public Law 101-625 (104
Stat. 4388) and redesignating such paragraph as paragraph
(25); and
(3) by adding at the end (after the paragraphs added by
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection) the new paragraph
(21) added by section 1012(f)(3)) of Public Law 102-550 (106
Stat. 3905) and redesignating such paragraph as paragraph
(26).
(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) (as added by subsection (a)(1) of
this section), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (25) (as added by subsection (a)(2) of
this section), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(3) in paragraph (26) (as added by subsection (a)(3) of
this section), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(27) economic development and redevelopment activities
related to projects for brownfields sites (as such term is
defined in section 123(f)), in conjunction with the
appropriate environmental regulatory agencies, except that
assistance pursuant to this paragraph shall not be provided
in a manner that reduces the financial responsibility of any
nongovernmental party that is responsible or potentially
responsible for contamination on any real property and the
provision of assistance pursuant to this paragraph shall not
in any way relieve any party of liability with respect to
such contamination, including liability for removal and
remediation costs.''.
SEC. 5. 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. 6. APPLICABILITY.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply only with
respect to amounts made available for fiscal year 2008 and
fiscal years thereafter for use under the provisions of law
amended by this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs.
Biggert) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to give more flexibility to our
municipalities. They are allowed to use Community Development Block
Grant funds for cleaning up brownfields.
By the way, I do want to comment for a minute on brownfields. We hear
a great deal about public sector-private sector, and I believe that
people have unwisely seen this as if there was an opposition. In fact,
we need to cooperate, and I particularly here want to call attention to
an aspect of this bill that is relevant to those who tend to see the
private sector as the fountain of all benefits and the public sector as
somehow a source of negative activity.
What we are doing here is giving local governments the right to use
Federal money to clean up messes that were left behind by the private
sector. Brownfields overwhelmingly are the result of industrial
activity that was once profitable and no longer is. That doesn't mean
that the people that did it were bad people, necessarily. It does mean
given the change in economics, private sector entities walked away in
many cases and left the public sector responsible for these cleanups.
What we are doing here is giving more flexibility to local
communities so that they don't have to take out a section 108 loan,
which can tie up their Community Development Block Grant funds for a
long time. It does give in to local judgment.
I do want to note one very important point that the gentleman from
Michigan, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has
stressed, and a point on which I am in complete agreement with him,
namely that the funding flexibility here should be for brownfields, not
for Superfund sites.
In the Superfund situation, we have provisions for those who polluted
to have to pay in to cleaning up the messes they left behind. We do not
want the brownfields money here to be used in any way to diminish that
liability.
So I very much agree with the point that was made by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). In fact, when we sent this bill previously
to the Senate, they removed the restriction that we had put in there
that would have prevented this from happening, and we then would not
pass the bill. We will send this again to the Senate and we hope they
will accept that this is for brownfields, it is not for Superfund. It
should be used in this very strict way so as to not become a substitute
for private contributions that ought to be coming.
If we limit this to CDBG money for the brownfields situation, we will
be doing it right. This bill is entitled the Brownfields Redevelopment
Enhancement Act. We want moneys that are freed up here to be used only
for that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 644, the Brownfields
Redevelopment Enhancement Act of 2007. I want to commend Congressman
Miller of California for introducing this legislation for the fourth
time.
This bill aims to provide local communities greater access to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's brownfields program to
clean up and redevelop contaminated sites. More importantly, the bill
will help local communities create new jobs and expand their tax base.
The revitalization of brownfields sites has always been a familiar
topic in Illinois, as my home State has thousands of these underused or
vacant
[[Page H1908]]
properties. Brownfields are those sites where redevelopment is
complicated by potential environmental contamination. They are less
seriously contaminated than those covered under the Superfund Act, and
there are an estimated 500,000 of them across the country.
HUD administers a brownfields program called the Brownfields Economic
Development Initiative, or BEDI. The main purpose of BEDI is to spur
economic and community development of the brownfields sites. The
problem is that due to a loan guarantee requirement, the program has
been underutilized. Over the past 5 years, the Financial Services
Committee has sought to make HUD's program more effective, specifically
the BEDI program.
At hearings, we learned that many communities had been shut out of
the BEDI program because they can't get a grant without going through
the cumbersome process of applying for a section 108 loan. That is very
hard on those smaller communities.
Under current law, HUD's brownfields redevelopment projects must be
backed by those section 108 guaranteed loans. The section 108 loans
require a local community to provide loan security by collateralizing
its BEDI project with that community's current and future CDBG
allocations. Therefore, many small communities have been hesitant to
reply for BEDI because they are unwilling or unable to pledge their
block grants as collateral for the guaranteed loans. In short, H.R. 644
amends the HUD Act of 1974 to permit HUD to issue BEDI grants
independent of the section 108 loan guarantees.
This bill does not create a new program and would not trigger new
spending or receipts. This bill will facilitate brownfields
redevelopment in thousands of communities across the country, thereby
encouraging economic development, expanding communities' tax bases and,
most importantly, creating new jobs.
I applaud the bill's sponsors for introducing H.R. 644. I urge my
colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the chair of
the Housing Subcommittee, from which this bill came.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 644, the Brownfields
Redevelopment Enhancement Act, a bill of which I am an original
cosponsor. I certainly applaud the distinguished chairman of Committee
on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, for working to get this bill to the
floor. I also want to thank Mr. Gary Miller, who introduced the bill
and who has been working on this subject for quite some time, as well
as all of the other cosponsors of this bill.
The House passed a bill identical to H.R. 644 in the 109th Congress
because many of us recognized the importance of preserving a means of
remedying the numerous hazardous sites that remain in this country.
Under the Brownfields Act, the Environmental Protection Agency awards
grants for the assessment and cleanup of sites that pose a serious
threat to human health and the environment than sites addressed by the
Superfund.
Many of these sites thwart the development and revitalization of
communities in distressed areas of the country, including the City of
Los Angeles and Los Angeles County. In fact, it is these sites that
make development efforts impossible because of the potential risks.
The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act becomes a powerful
economic development tool when used in conjunction with other Federal
economic redevelopment resources, CDBG and section 108 loan guarantees.
It is precisely the kind of leveraging tool that we must utilize to
spur development in places where development costs are uncertain given
the presence of hazardous materials.
The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act, if passed, will
continue to provide four types of competitive grants: Assessment grants
used as planning tools by grantees to conduct due diligence related to
the affected sites; revolving loan fund grants to capitalize the loans
for the cleanup of the sites; cleanup grants that provide for the
recipient to undertake cleanup activities; and job training grants made
available to nonprofits and educational entities to develop
environmental job training programs.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to postpone passage of this bill any
longer. It sends a bad signal to the communities across the Nation who
are trying to rebuild, reinvest and strengthen their economic local
economies. Any Federal tool to leverage private investment must be
preserved, particularly in this pay-as-you-go economic environment. The
Brownfields Enhancement Act is a tool, and therefore I urge my
colleagues to support it.
{time} 1500
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
644. As a former mayor of the third largest city in New Jersey,
Paterson, the first planned industrial city in the Nation and home to
some of the country's oldest brownfield sites, I know this bill will be
beneficial to our Nation's communities.
H.R. 644 authorizes HUD to offer much-needed grants for the
environmental cleanup and economic development of brownfield sites,
places we drive by every day of our lives. We want to rehabilitate
those sites, including inactive factories, gas stations, salvage yards,
abandoned warehouses.
This bill also makes brownfield-related environmental cleanup and
economic development activities eligible for Community Development
Block Grants assistance. These sites drive down property values,
provide little or no tax revenue, and contribute to community blight.
Since the inception of brownfield programs, Mr. Speaker, the Federal
Government has allocated over $800 million in brownfield assessment and
cleanup funds. In addition, this investment has leveraged over $8
billion in cleanup and redevelopment dollars, a better than 10 to 1
return on investment. It has resulted in the assessment of more than
8,000 properties and helped create over 37,000 jobs. It is a winner.
This is because the EPA and HUD grants work in conjunction with funds
that come from both the State and local governments, and of course
private sources, to address cleanup of brownfield sites. If we don't do
this, those sites will remain abandoned and barren for years ahead of
us.
This is an exciting time in the brownfields marketplace. Federal
brownfields programs have provided the foundation on which State
initiatives have flourished. Throughout the country, there are
thousands of abandoned structures that were once thriving businesses,
often part of large industrial centers. Economic development matched
with environmental cleanup has resulted in the rebirth of many
industrial and commercial properties and surrounding neighborhoods.
Anyone who cares about our Nation's cities celebrates these
successes. HUD's particular expertise in incorporating brownfields
remediation into a larger strategy for economic development and
community revitalization is essential to the success we have had and
will continue to have in the future. This is a stimulant to the
economy, a real stimulant.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very worthwhile
legislation.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to make any
comments for the Record that they wish, and also to include extraneous
material on H.R. 644 and H.R. 1066.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker and Chairman Frank, on behalf
of New York City, which I represent, I am pleased that the House is
considering the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act.
[[Page H1909]]
I am proud to have been an original cosponsor of this legislation in
every session since it was first introduced in the 107th Congress.
As you know, the primary purpose of the bill is to increase the
flexibility of the Housing and Urban Development Department's
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) and to make the
program available to more local Governments.
The legislation eliminates the requirement that communities applying
for BEDI grants must pledge their Community Block Development Grant
(CBDG) funding as security for the loan--a rule that puts local
Governments between a rock and a hard place.
Since its inception, the larger brownfields program has proven an
effective Government response to a serious environmental problem, and
it is important that we maximize its use.
Brownfields are abandoned, or under-used industrial and commercial
facilities where further redevelopment is impeded by environmental
contamination. They spot our country from coast to coast, especially in
areas with high or formerly high levels of industrial activity, such as
older urban areas. New York City, including my district, is full of
them.
These locations have potential for economic development but are held
back by the environmental problems created by former or current users.
The program has successfully used a variety of financial and technical
assistance to restore these sites which would otherwise be doomed to
further decay.
I am very pleased to support this legislation and thank
Representative Gary Miller for introducing it again this year and
Chairman Barney Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for their leadership on
this bipartisan issue.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as a coauthor of the original legislation
which created the Brownfields program, I rise in support of H.R. 644,
which makes Brownfield Economic Development Initiative, BEDI, grants
far more accessible to smaller communities by eliminating a requirement
for communities to guarantee their BEDI grant with their Community
Development block grant funds.
I believe the Brownfields program is one of the most successful
programs the Federal Government has to help revitalized urban areas.
These sites, typically in the heart of urban areas, lie idle because no
one wants to incur the large costs associated with Superfund cleanups.
This, in turn should encourage more-environmental cleanup and
economic development of brownfield sites. As a result, cities are
marked by abandoned buildings and vacant lots while developers
construct new buildings on what was previously open space in the
suburbs.
Though small, these grants serve as seed money, enabling dozens of
communities to leverage millions of State and private dollars to move
into the actual cleanup phase.
By reusing Brownfields sites, we not only rebuild blighted
communities, but also target development in city centers and avoid
unnecessary urbanization on the fringes of metropolitan areas.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 644.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________