[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 28114-28119]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT ENHANCEMENT ACT

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 280) 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. 280

       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.

     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);

[[Page 28115]]

       ``(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 2006, 
     2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.''.

     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 2006 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 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this bill on the floor today. 
The revitalization of brownfield sites has always interested me because 
Ohio has thousands of those underused or vacant properties. I was 
involved in writing the first brownfields legislation almost 10 years 
ago at a time when people were just starting to focus on what 
redevelopment could mean for jobs and cleaning up the environment.
  Aside from the contamination at these sites, we found that there were 
legal and financial obstacles to redevelopment. After working on the 
issue for several years, Congress passed a major brownfields bill in 
2001 that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) helped push across the 
goal line. That bill mainly dealt with EPA's programs.
  The Financial Services Committee then started looking at making HUD's 
programs more effective, specifically the Brownfields Economic 
Development Initiative. At a hearing, we learned that many communities 
have been shut out of the BEDI, pronounced Betty, program because they 
cannot get a grant without going through the cumbersome process of 
applying for a section 108 loan. That is very hard on smaller 
communities. In fact, Mayor Lydia Reid from Mansfield in my 
congressional district testified that is an obstacle to getting 
redevelopment project off the ground and creating new jobs.
  I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) for 
introducing H.R. 280. It will bring needed flexibility to the program 
by delinking BEDI from the section 108 program. Communities will be 
able to apply for a grant if that is all they need to get a project 
going and bring in major private sector investment.
  We can unlock a lot of jobs by getting a lot of these properties back 
to productive use. There are some 450,000 brownfield sites in every 
State in the Nation. By redeveloping these properties, we also reduce 
the stress being put on pristine green fields and farmland.
  We have had good cooperation in our committees and with other 
committees in bringing this bill to the floor. A vote for H.R. 280 is a 
vote for jobs. I urge its passage today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I know that our colleague from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) was en 
route here, and that is appropriate because he has been a major 
proponent of this bill. He and I have worked together on it.
  What we do here is to frankly allow cities, municipalities, to do 
more to clean up brownfield sites. Surprisingly, initially we ran into 
some jurisdictional objections, I think based on turf, I guess, in this 
case, almost literally on turf, from some people who were kind of 
proponents of the EPA's role there.
  I should make it very clear, to the extent that the Environmental 
Protection Agency can clean up these sites, wonderful. Mayors are not 
asking for the right to take funds for which they have a large number 
of demand and divert them into projects that would be otherwise done by 
the EPA, but there are occasions where we know the EPA does not have 
the money it ought to have.
  I regret the fact that Congress earlier, the majority then in 
control, decided to end the taxation that we levied on the oil 
companies to provide funds for EPA. EPA has not got enough money, and 
we do not give it enough in the appropriations process. So I regret 
that, and I want to do all that I can to include it, but I do not want 
to tell a city because we have not given enough money to the EPA that 
the city is precluded from going forward cleaning up their brownfields.
  I also want to talk a little bit about the public sector/private 
sector issue here. We hear a lot about the value of the private sector, 
and it is often put in the context of the private sector

[[Page 28116]]

versus the public sector, with people being critical of the public 
sector. There are times when the public sector and elements of it do 
not do well. There are times when the private sector does not, but 
understand what we are talking about here.
  Brownfields are overwhelmingly the product of private sector 
activity. Brownfields is a somewhat neutral term for ugly, messy stuff, 
pollutants, chemicals and other things that I guess turn the green 
grass brown, that turn the earth into an unpleasant situation.
  The private sector companies that did that were not bad people. Most 
of them, a couple of bad people sneak in everywhere, but they really 
believed that it was their job to do it. They were producing various 
goods, and the processes used to produce various goods will sometimes 
produce pollutants.
  What we have here with brownfields are situations overwhelmingly 
where a private sector entity made money by producing certain goods and 
then went out of business, moved away, moved overseas and left behind 
quite literally a physical problem in the city. What we are saying here 
is we are recognizing that the public sector has to step in and clean 
that up.
  In some cases, under environmental law, we try to get private sector, 
responsible parties, to contribute, but sometimes, they are not around 
to do that. They have not got the money. They are just not there. Let 
us be clear. This is a recognition of the need for a well-funded public 
sector operation to literally clean up the messes left behind by the 
private sector. This is an example in my mind of how in a rational 
society seeking the right quality of life, public and private sectors 
each will have an important role, and they will be cooperative.
  I regret that fact that because we had a rule about no new programs 
that the pilot projects that would have allowed the Secretary of HUD to 
make some grants to explicitly combine cleaning up the brownfields with 
subsequent economic development on that cleaned-up site, that that was 
stricken from the bill. I know the gentleman from California has said, 
and I appreciate this, that he and I will continue to push for that. I 
hope that next year we may get that authorized as a separate bill.
  What we are doing here is to free up any restrictions on the 
community development block grant program. One problem in the past was 
that if cities wanted to use their CDBG funds, they had to do it 
through a program called section 108 which required them to kind of 
roll their CDBG funds for many years. This allows them more 
flexibility. It allows us if we can get some appropriations into this 
to give them some money so they can also get things cleaned up.
  It is, as I said, arming the mayors and local officials with a new 
set of tools to take areas of their city that have been despoiled by 
past private sector practices and make them available for the kinds of 
uses that will help enhance the quality of life, the economic and other 
kinds of activities in the city.
  I just want to pay tribute here to the mayor of the city of New 
Bedford, Fred Kalisz, a long-serving mayor in the largest city in my 
district, who is leaving office in a few weeks. It was his advocacy to 
a great extent that called this issue to my attention, and he will be 
leaving, but I am very pleased that, as he leaves, we will be passing, 
and I hope soon the President will sign into law a bill that responds 
to one of the needs that he identified
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Gillmor), who I have had the pleasure to work with for many, many 
years, both in Ohio and here in the Congress. He has been a leader on 
the brownfields issue since we served together on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, and we are pleased to have him participate not only 
on that committee but our committee as well.
  Mr. GILLMOR. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise 
in support of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, for the last 10 years, Federal involvement in 
brownfields cleanup and redevelopment has been increasing, particularly 
since our Nation's mayors know that brownfields redevelopment efforts 
are proven, results-driven programs that have changed the way 
contaminated property is managed. What once began as an administrative 
pilot program has now blossomed into a major Federal grant program.
  Simply having a brownfield, though, is no guarantee that the land 
will be cleaned up and redeveloped. When I introduced the legislation 
in 2001 that has now become our country's primary brownfields law, a 
major component of that measure was ensuring that Federal grant money 
was available to seed the development of those run-down properties.

                              {time}  1615

  In fact, next to lingering liability concerns, the largest barriers 
that cities face when trying to acquire and redevelop contaminated 
brownfields sites was their lack of access to adequate and affordable 
capital to carry out critical brownfields activities.
  This bill does not create a new program, but rather builds on an 
existing administrative program at HUD. H.R. 280 will increase access 
to brownfields redevelopment funds for America's more distressed and 
smaller communities through the Brownfields Economic Development 
Initiative; and, more importantly, it will couple this money with 
Federal expertise on community redevelopment projects.
  Brownfields are both as a result of private and government activity, 
and in almost every case the activity which now needs to be cleaned up 
was legal when it was done. But it is important that we provide the 
resources so that we can redevelop these sites and bring back the jobs 
that once existed there.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and 
I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio making that point. Yes, a great 
many of these activities, probably most of them, were legal at the 
time. And I think that is an important point.
  Society's mores change and customs change; and we are talking about, 
in many cases, businesses and, in some cases, government with waste 
disposal that were doing things entirely legal at the time, not fully 
cognizant of the consequences; and it sometimes falls to later 
generations literally to clean up.
  These things were often things that were legal, not done by bad 
people, but people who were following the rules at the time; and I 
think it is fashionable to lament the deterioration of society all the 
time. This is an example, the whole brownfields approach of higher 
standards, of the decision of society today not only not to accept some 
of the things that used to happen but literally to clean them up.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership on so many other issues. Bringing this to 
the floor took a great deal of work and conversations and negotiations 
and Mr. Frank led that work in many ways.
  I also want to really compliment the passion of Gary Miller from 
California, who has introduced this legislation in a number of 
Congresses. Before coming to Congress, he worked in urban areas in 
redevelopment and knows the problem that brownfields can cause to 
localities in holding back economic development. He has been really 
devoted to passing it, and it has been my pleasure to work with him on 
this for three Congresses.
  The primary purpose of this legislation is to increase the 
flexibility of the HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, the 
BEDI program, and make the program available to more local governments.
  This is a very important initiative, particularly for upstate New 
York, a former industrial area. Many manufacturing jobs have left and 
left behind contaminated brownfields. Our localities, our villages, 
towns and cities desperately need this money to clean up these 
brownfields and return these economic centers to economic growth.

[[Page 28117]]

  The Financial Services Committee has reported this legislation out by 
an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the past two Congresses, reflecting 
the bipartisan consensus that brownfields clean-up benefits the 
economic development of our entire Nation. The legislation eliminates 
the requirement that communities applying for BEDI grants must pledge 
their Community Development Block Grant funding as security for the 
loan. This requirement puts local governments, particularly smaller 
local governments, between a rock and a hard place.
  Since its inception, the larger brownfields program has proven to be 
an effective government response to a serious environmental problem, 
and it is important that we maximize its use. Brownfields spot our 
country from coast to coast, especially in areas with high or formerly 
high levels of industrial activity, especially urban areas. These 
brownfields locations have a potential for economic development, but 
they have been held back by the environmental problems created by 
former or current users.
  New York City and State, and I am sure probably every State and city, 
is full of them. 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.
  I am very pleased that we are moving this legislation forward today, 
but very disappointed that the BEDI program appears to be under attack 
from the administration. The budget the administration put forward this 
year would have discontinued the BEDI program at HUD and shifted its 
function to Commerce. Therefore, this bill is especially important this 
year to preserve the very survival of the brownfields initiative.
  I truly do want to thank Gary Miller for his consistent and 
persistent leadership in introducing this legislation year after year 
and Ranking Member Frank for championing it, along with his staff; and 
of course Chairman Michael Oxley for his leadership on this and so many 
other issues.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The gentlewoman from New York reminded me that a lot of these things 
that are very broadly supported require money. And just as we have seen 
a cutting off of funding of the EPA, this administration, sadly, has 
been trying to cut back the funds for the brownfields program.
  And indeed I have a rare opportunity in which I can congratulate the 
Appropriations Committee under the control of the majority because they 
had the good sense to reject a proposal by this administration to 
rescind this coming year's money for the brownfields program because 
they said they needed to deal with it to offset the problems in 
Katrina.
  So this strong support for this brownfields program comes at a very 
good time, because it is a strong voice of support, I believe on a 
bipartisan basis, from the Appropriations Committee in repudiating that 
very ill-thought-out effort by the administration to rescind all of its 
money.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a former member of the Financial Services 
Committee, who has come back home to participate in this debate on 
brownfields.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I especially thank the chairman for his 
indulgence in allowing me some time on this legislation, and I am 
honored to be part of the Financial Services Committee argument today 
for this House bill 280, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act, 
because it will make a real difference for communities throughout this 
country.
  I was a Pennsylvania senator for 10 years; and while I was there, we 
passed a very forward-thinking brownfields bill that helped to provide 
more opportunity for development of brownfields without fear of 
liability. That is one step, and it was important for my State; 
however, on the Federal level, we have had a program in place, the BEDI 
program, which is a great program; but there are some impediments to 
many of our communities being able to utilize that program.
  I am a cosponsor of this legislation because it will provide access 
to funding that is vital to restoring brownfields sites. It is going to 
improve the BEDI program and make it more practical for America's small 
cities and communities so that they can thrive.
  My district is home to many of these communities that have small 
brownfields sites right in the middle of town. Revitalizing these sites 
is key to helping rebuild the economy of these small towns.
  The significance of this development was highlighted recently at the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors in June 2003 when they did their survey. The 
cities that were surveyed noted that the creation of over 83,000 jobs 
through redevelopment in 148 cities was because of brownfields 
redevelopment. However, they also stated that nearly 600,000 more jobs 
could be created with more liberal use of monies through this program. 
In addition, by helping to reclaim these old sites, developers do not 
have to look to undeveloped land to locate businesses or residential 
properties.
  One of the major hurdles to revitalizing these is financing. 
Unfortunately, this is especially true for these small towns and cities 
that I mentioned. These are the ones that are most eager to see these 
sites as host to new development. They face continuous hurdles, and 
this bill will help remove some of these hurdles.
  These grants through BEDI could be a valuable source of funding to 
revitalize these towns and communities and lead to a brighter future 
that these towns envision. The program requires communities at this 
time, though, to take on additional debt. Many of these communities 
cannot afford to do so. The investment, though, in these communities 
would provide opportunities for them to grow and to grow their tax base 
and also add jobs.
  I have heard from many in the communities I represent that we need to 
work to make BEDI grants more available. This bill would do so. By 
delinking section 108 loans from BEDI grants, H.R. 280 will provide 
this access to brownfields redevelopment and to this special program 
which works so well for small communities. It will make it work even 
better for the small communities in my district and across the Nation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me again recognize a few 
individuals. Gary Miller of California, the author of this legislation, 
has been just dogged in his determination to get this legislation 
passed. Unfortunately, his plane was delayed coming from California 
today and so was unable to participate in the debate.
  I also want to thank Paul Gillmor for his dogged efforts on this, and 
I appreciate also the cooperation of the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, and Mrs. Maloney for their efforts.
  It has been 4 years since we began working on this legislation, and I 
have to say that these are the kinds of bills that do not get a whole 
lot of attention. They are not overly controversial, but they do a lot 
of good. They will have a very positive impact on a lot of communities 
throughout the country.
  We debate this under the suspension of the rules, so you will not 
hear a lot of hue and cry in the media about it. But at the end of the 
day, it is Congress at its best doing the kind of work we need to do.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would just say that they have one other 
advantage: they are sufficiently uncomplicated to get the United States 
Senate to act on them.
  Mr. OXLEY. I would echo that. And I am glad we changed the rules, by 
the way, that one can mention that body instead of referring to it as, 
quote, the other body.

[[Page 28118]]

  In any event, this is meaningful legislation that we indeed want to 
pursue in the other body so that we can get this to the President. It 
has an enormous upside and potential for communities.
  Governor Voinovich, when he was Governor before becoming Senator, had 
a commission which he commissioned in Ohio to study the loss of 
greenfields in the Buckeye State. One of the things that that 
commission found was that we could start the flow of that use of very 
productive farmland in Ohio by better cleaning up brownfields and 
putting them back to use.
  So this bill is basically in that vein, and we think that this will 
go a long way in that effort.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 280, The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act.
  I would like to thank Committee Chairman Oxley, Subcommittee Chairman 
Ney, and Ranking Member Frank for their leadership and assistance in 
ensuring this important legislation be considered by the full House 
prior to adjournment.


                        community redevelopment

  Brownfields are abandoned, idle, or under-used industrial and 
commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated 
by real or perceived environmental contamination.
  It is estimated that there are over 500,000 Brownfield sites across 
the country.
  Brownfields represent more than just unproductive eyesores blighting 
individual communities.
  They threaten our groundwater supply, cost our local communities jobs 
and revenue, and contribute to urban sprawl.
  Brownfield sites hold tremendous potential for community 
revitalization. Many of these sites are strategically located in or 
around key areas of communities.
  Redevelopment of these sites is both a challenge and an opportunity 
and returning them to productive use can serve as a catalyst for local 
economic recovery.


             hud's involvement in brownfields redevelopment

  The largest obstacle cities face when redeveloping Brownfield sites 
is the lack of capital needed to carry out essential early-stage 
activities.
  Because private financiers are often unwilling or unable to provide 
the funding to take a site through the full redevelopment cycle, local 
municipalities and local leaders find themselves confronted with the 
complex task of redevelopment.
  The Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant program 
was designed to help cities overcome this challenge.
  The BEDI program helps communities to convert abandoned or 
underutilized sites into useful developments, thereby increasing the 
area's tax base and creating new job opportunities where none existed.
  The BEDI program gives cities the opportunity to minimize urban 
sprawl and preserve existing green space by working with local 
developers and builders to utilize previously developed properties.
  The program gives local communities a valuable tool to address 
blight, create new jobs, and expand their tax base.


        bedi is distinct from other federal brownfield programs

  There is a clear and critical role for the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) to play in communities' efforts to redevelop 
Brownfield sites.
  Unlike Brownfields programs in other agencies, BEDI funds are 
targeted for use, with a particular emphasis upon redevelopment.
  Further, HUD emphasizes that resources are to be used on projects and 
activities that will provide near-term results and demonstrable 
economic benefits, such as job creation and increases in the local tax 
base.
  Funds are used as the stimulus for local governments and private 
sector parties to commence redevelopment or continue phased 
redevelopment efforts on Brownfield sites.
  Brownfields funds under other federal agencies, such as the EPA, are 
more focused on environmental clean-up.
  HUD does not encourage applications whose scope is limited only to 
site acquisition and/or remediation (i.e., land banking), where there 
is no immediately planned redevelopment.


             problem with current structure of bedi program

  While HUD's BEDI program is an important tool for communities to 
redevelop Brownfield sites, in its current form the grant is difficult, 
if not impossible, for local communities to utilize.
  If a local community wishes to pursue Brownfields redevelopment funds 
from HUD, they must first apply for a Section 108 loan.
  In order to secure this loan, they are required to put up a portion 
of their Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money as collateral.
  The requirement that communities must obtain a Section 108 loan 
guarantee before they are awarded a BEDI grant has stymied the 
effectiveness of the BEDI program because it:
  Makes it virtually impossible for small cities to access BEDI 
resources since they do not get their own CDBG entitlement grants from 
which to meet the required Section 108 collateral pledge.
  Serves as a disincentive for small and mid-sized cities.
  Discourages small projects.
  Has proven difficult for many cities and counties to meet because of 
debt caps and concern that the addition of more Section 108 debt would 
jeopardize basic CDBG programs and services.
  Without the Section 108 loan guarantee, cities are effectively locked 
out of the BEDI grant.


                                H.R. 280

  H.R. 280 provides communities with the flexibility they need to 
finance Brownfields redevelopment projects.
  It makes improvements to the BEDI program, ensuring that communities 
who have traditionally had trouble obtaining financing for Brownfields 
Redevelopment activities have access to needed capital.
  Specifically, the bill authorizes appropriations for the BEDI program 
and eliminates the requirement that cities obtain Section 108 loan 
guarantees as a condition to receiving BEDI grant funding.


                               Conclusion

  This legislation gives local communities a valuable tool to address 
blight, create new jobs, and expand their tax base.
  With the flexible access to the BEDI grant program that this bill 
provides, we can help revitilize Brownfields sites across the country.
  Cities have an opportunity to minimize urban sprawl and preserve 
existing green space by working with local developers and builders to 
utilize previously developed properties.
  This bill will empower cities to take ownership of their Brownfields 
and work with their development community to design projects that 
utilize existing infrastructure.
  Most importantly, it is estimated that more than $2.4 billion in new 
tax revenues can be generated through Brownfields redevelopment.
  Let's give cities access to the up-front financing they need to clean 
up Brownfields sites. I urge my colleagues to support this crucial 
legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 280, which would 
allow the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to make 
grants to assist in the environmental cleanup and economic development 
of Brownfields sites.
  I believe the Brownfields program is one of the most successful 
programs the Federal Government has to help revitalize 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.
  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.
  Specifically, this legislation ensures that communities that have 
traditionally had trouble obtaining financing for Brownfields 
Redevelopment activities have access to needed capital.
  Though small, these grants have served as seed money, enabling dozens 
of communities to leverage millions of state and private dollars to 
move into 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. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support of 
H.R. 280, ``The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act'' and want to 
thank Representative Gary Miller for shepherding this important 
legislation through the House.
  This legislation will remove unnecessary obstacles from localities 
that are poised to transform abandoned or underutilized sites into 
clean, marketable properties. This type of redevelopment is an 
important ingredient in the economic recovery of many areas--creating 
jobs, improving the quality of the environment and spurring the 
preservation of open space.
  There are few issues that we face that have as much strategic 
potential as redeveloping Brownfields sites.
  This redevelopment is not just about real estate--it is a jobs issue, 
a health issue, an environmental issue, a housing issue and an economic 
development issue.
  A relatively small investment by the Federal Government will yield 
tremendous benefits for our country's social and economic well being.
  The HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) is 
particularly valuable

[[Page 28119]]

for neighborhood revitalization, since only BEDI funds are specifically 
targeted for use in economic development projects.
  Unfortunately, current law requires that cities obtain Section 108 
loan guarantees as a condition of receiving a BEDI grant.
  This makes it difficult for small and medium sized cities to obtain 
BEDI grants since they are often not able to raise the capital 
necessary to meet the Section 108 collateral requirement.
  Let the Congress pass this common sense legislation to remove the 
Section 108 requirement and unleash the vast economic potential that 
lies dormant in our cities across the Nation.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 280, the Brownfields 
Revitalization Enhancement Act. I want to thank Congressman Miller from 
California for his hard work and dedication toward the issue of 
brownfields redevelopment. I look forward to working with Congressman 
Miller in the future on this issue.
  Brownfield sites are served by an existing infrastructure and through 
their remediation, urban sprawl can be reduced. Redeveloping 
brownfields could create 1.9 billion dollars annually in increased tax 
revenues for American cities.
  H.R. 280 provides grant money to cities and towns to redevelop 
brownfield sites. This bill also detaches grant availability from 
section 108 loan guarantees, which allows more communities to have 
access to critical grant funds.
  Mr. Speaker, we must clean up our Nation's brownfields. These 
contaminated sites are hazards to our communities, and through their 
remediation we can bring businesses and families back into American 
cities.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sodrel). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 280, 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.

                          ____________________