[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3775-3776]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ACT

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, prior to our going out today, I want to 
speak on something that is not related to bankruptcy. What I would like 
to talk about today is the disappointment I have that we are not going 
to be able to do a bipartisan brownfields bill, S. 350, tomorrow or 
Monday. I want to talk about this bill which is entitled the 
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act. I am 
sorry we cannot take this up today.
  We cannot take it up because there has been objection on the other 
side. We have worked very hard. We wanted to have a unanimous consent 
agreement. We have a window with some time on Friday before we get into 
any heavy lifting on campaign finance reform. We could do it anytime: 
Early in the morning, late at night tomorrow, or on Monday.
  This is a bill blessed with wide support. The bill has almost 60 
cosponsors and passed out of our committee last week with a 15-3 vote. 
We went to tremendous effort to satisfy those three. For example, 
Senator Voinovich, who is a very fine legislator, had some problems. I 
told him during the markup that we would work with him to try to 
resolve those differences, and we did that. I know some of my 
colleagues on the committee voiced their concerns about some specific 
bill language, including my friend Senator Voinovich, at the markup. I 
am pleased to say that Senator Voinovich and all of the others who had 
problems, we worked night and day, the staff worked night and day to 
reconcile differences.
  The chairman of the committee is Bob Smith of New Hampshire. I am the 
ranking member. We have worked extremely hard on this legislation. We 
wanted to have a bipartisan bill come out of that committee, a 50/50 
committee, as are all the committees over here. The President supports 
this bill. This bill reflects the bipartisan efforts of Senator Smith 
and myself on the committee. It also reflects the tremendous staff work 
of our committee in helping us work out these differences we had, even 
though the bill was reported out 15-3. We wanted to make sure they were 
satisfied.
  I appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to address these concerns and others and produce a bill with even 
more broad support. We have worked closely with Senators Inhofe, Bond, 
and Crapo--I have already mentioned Senator Voinovich--as well as 
Senators Clinton, Boxer, Corzine, and Graham to accommodate the 
interests they expressed at our committee hearing. I understand the 
bill we have before us to date does just that. I am very proud of that.
  This bill is truly the best compromise we could reach and is a symbol 
of our ability to reach across the aisle and enact truly bipartisan 
legislation.
  I understood, when we entered into this historic power-sharing 
agreement this year, that we would truly work together. I understood 
that we would truly work to pass thoughtful bipartisan legislation, 
just like the bill we had before us today.
  This brownfields legislation, S. 350, is an issue on which President 
Bush campaigned. This is a bill his administration has endorsed. Yet we 
stand here today basically being denied the opportunity to bring up 
this bill. We know there is a need for this legislation. There are more 
than 500,000 contaminated, abandoned sites in the United States. They 
are waiting to be cleaned and to become thriving parts of our 
communities. It works in urban areas; it works in rural areas.
  Redeveloping a site will create almost 600,000 jobs nationally. In 
the State of Nevada, it would create hundreds of new jobs, millions of 
dollars in tax revenue, and, on a national level, tax revenues would be 
increased to as much as $2.5 billion.
  This bill is good, and we need it. This bill provides three important 
things to directly spur cleanup and reuse of these abandoned and 
contaminated sites.
  No. 1, it provides critically needed money to assess and clean up 
abandoned and underutilized brownfields sites, which will create jobs, 
increase tax revenues, and preserve and create parks and open space.
  No. 2, it encourages cleanup and redevelopment by providing legal 
protections for innocent parties such as contiguous property owners, 
prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners.
  Every day that goes by that we do not pass this legislation means 
property owners have problems. One reason I care so strongly about this 
issue is that we waited for 2 years, the entire last Congress, to get 
this to the Senate floor, and we were always prevented from doing so.
  No. 3, this legislation provides for funding and enhancement of State 
cleanup programs and a balance between providing certainty for 
developers, which they want, and others but still ensuring protection 
of public health.
  This legislation has been signed off on by the business community, 
the development community. It has been signed off on by the 
environmental community. It is a fine balance, but it is good 
legislation.
  This bill does a number of additional things that are not in the 
committee report. It clarifies the coordination between the States and 
EPA. Senator Voinovich thought this was important. It provides 
clarification that cities and others can purchase insurance at 
brownfields sites. It provides for an additional $50 million per year 
for addressing abandoned sites which are contaminated by petroleum, 
such as corner gas stations.
  For those of you not familiar with Superfund, it does not cover 
petroleum, so our original brownfield bill did not cover these sites 
either. I am pleased, however, that we were able to work out provisions 
so that these numerous sites can also be addressed.
  This was a provision requested by Senators Inhofe and Crapo, and I am 
pleased we were able to agree to it. Senator Crapo felt very intensely 
about his objections to this bill. He expressed them well. As a result 
of that, we came back and corrected this problem. I do appreciate the 
intenstity of his feelings about this.
  This legislation also adds provisions so that areas with higher than 
average instances of cancer and disease and

[[Page 3776]]

sites with disproportionate effects on children, minority communities, 
or other sensitive subpopulations will be given consideration in making 
grant decisions. This is something that was advocated very well by 
Senators Clinton, Corzine, and Boxer.
  This legislation also increases citizen participation by adding to 
the list of State brownfields program elements the right for citizens 
to request that a site be considered under the State program.
  All these changes have been carefully considered and provide 
improvements to the bill. We acknowledge that. Moreover, they 
collectively represent the same delicate balance, as does the 
underlying bill, in the managers' amendment. We address the different 
but often complementary needs of the real estate community, 
environmentalists, States, mayors, and other local government 
officials, land and conservation groups, and the communities that are 
most directly affected by these sites. This balance is what makes this 
bill unique and makes it a success.
  As we all know, S. 350 has the support of a wide variety of groups 
including, as I have already mentioned, environmentalists, mayors, 
businesses, and the real estate community. This is a bill that reflects 
a meeting of the minds from all sectors of American society because it 
is so badly needed. It is also something that is bipartisan in nature. 
This is not something that either the Democrats or Republicans are 
trying to cram down our throats. It is a model of how an evenly divided 
committee can work.
  I urge the Senate to recognize how good this legislation is and to 
prove to Americans that a 50/50 Senate can be productive and we can 
enact these laws. I am terribly disappointed that we are in a position 
now where we cannot go forward with this legislation. I am not going to 
ask unanimous consent that this agreement be effectuated. I will not do 
that. I understand there is an objection on the other side. I 
acknowledge that.
  I do say, however, that it is too bad we can't move forward on this 
legislation. It has been signed off on by every Democratic Senator. I 
hope there will be work done, maybe even during the night, so we can do 
something about this legislation and move forward on it. It is 
important legislation. It would be great for America in so many 
different ways, and I hope that very quickly we can have whatever 
problems are on the side of the Republicans alleviated and we can move 
forward on this most timely and important legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

                          ____________________