[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4701-4704]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 4702]]

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.

     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

[[Page 4703]]

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 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.

[[Page 4704]]

  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.
  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.

                          ____________________